Content area
Full Text
This paper examines the continuing role of the parol evidence rule in Canadian contract law, with a view to proposing a replacement rule for the purpose of determining the intention of the parties as to their agreement. The approach is a principles-based analysis of the Hawrish trilogy (Hawrish, Bauer, Carman Construction), the challenge from Lambert J.A. in Gallen v. Allstate Grain Co., and consideration of how the adoption of Lord Hoffmann 's approach to contractual interpretation might be adapted to replace the parol evidence rule. The paper concludes with a four-point rule proposed in place of the parol evidence rule.
Dans cet article l'auteur analyse la règle d'interprétation des contrats en droit canadien suivant laquelle il faut exclure la preuve extrinsèque aux fins de déterminer l'intention véritable des parties au contrat. Il propose le remplacement de cette règle par une nouvelle s'inspirant des principes énoncés par les tribunaux dans la trilogie Hawrish (Hawrish, Bauer et Carman Construction) et de l'opinion du juge Lambert dans Gallen v. Butterley. L'approche adoptée par Lord Hoffman pour l'interprétation des contrats pourrait être adaptée et servir de fondement d'une nouvelle règle, articulée en quatre points, en remplacement de la règle d'exclusion de la preuve extrinsèque.
1. INTRODUCTION
Although the parol evidence rule dates to at least the 17th century in the common law,1 its status, content and scope of operation in early 21st century contract law in Canada remains ambiguous. The classical formulation normally cited for the rule is that of Denman C.J. in Goss v. Lord Nugent: "If there be a contract which has been reduced to writing, verbal evidence is not allowed to be given of what passed between the parties, either before the written statement was made, or during the time that it was in a stage of preparation, so as to add to or subtract from, or in any manner to vary or qualify the written contract."2 Or, as it is usually formulated in standard contract law texts today: Parol evidence cannot be admitted to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict a written instrument.3 The rule was originally justified on the basis of the greater certainty and superiority associated with written evidence of a contract, but in the course of the 19th century,...