Dean's Law Dictionary is the only law dictionary with full legal cites. It is the fastest growing and premier legal dictionary

This is a sample of the definition in Dean's Law Dictionary for the Parol evidence rule (California).





Under traditional contract principles, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to interpret, vary or add to the terms of an unambiguous integrated written instrument. See 4 S. Williston, supra p. 5, § 631, at 948-49; 2 B. Witkin, California Evidence § 981, at 926 (3d ed. 1986).


California does not follow the traditional rule. In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 69 Cal. 2d 33, 442 P.2d 641, 69 Cal. Rptr. 561 (1968), turned its back on the notion that a contract can ever have a plain meaning discernible by a court without resort to extrinsic evidence. The court reasoned that contractual obligations flow not from the words of the contract, but from the  intention of the parties. "Accordingly," the court stated, "the exclusion of relevant, extrinsic, evidence to explain the meaning of a written instrument could be justified only if it were feasible to determine the meaning the parties gave to the words from the instrument alone." 69 Cal. 2d at 38, 442 P.2d 641. This, the California Supreme Court concluded, is impossible: "If words had absolute and constant referents, it might be possible to discover contractual intention in the words themselves and in the manner in which they were arranged. Words, however, do not have absolute and constant referents." Id. In the same vein, the court noted that "the exclusion of testimony that might contradict the linguistic background of the judge reflects a judicial belief in the possibility of perfect verbal expression. This belief is a remnant of a primitive faith in the inherent potency and inherent meaning of words." Id. at 37 (citation and footnotes omitted).  In an unusual footnote, the court compared the belief in the immutable meaning of words with "'the elaborate system of taboo and verbal prohibitions in primitive groups . . . [such as] the Swedish peasant custom of curing sick cattle smitten by witchcraft, by making them swallow a page torn out of the psalter and put in dough. . . .'" Id. n.2 (quoting Ullman, The Principles of Semantics 43 (1963)).


Under Pacific Gas, it matters not how clearly a contract is written, nor how completely it is integrated, nor how carefully it is negotiated, nor how squarely it addresses the issue before the court: the contract cannot be rendered impervious to attack by parol evidence. If one side is willing to claim that the parties intended one thing but the agreement provides for another, the court must consider extrinsic evidence of possible ambiguity. If that evidence raises the specter of ambiguity where there was none before, the contract language is displaced and the intention of the parties must be divined from self-serving testimony offered by partisan witnesses whose recollection is hazy from passage of time and colored by their conflicting interests. See Delta Dynamics, Inc. v. Arioto, 69 Cal. 2d 525, 532, 446 P.2d 785, 72 Cal. Rptr. 785 (1968) (Mosk, J., dissenting). Courts question whether this approach is more likely to divulge the original intention of the parties than reliance on the seemingly clear words they agreed upon at the time. See generally Morta v. Korea Ins. Co., 840 F.2d 1452, 1460 (9th Cir. 1988).


Pacific Gas casts a long shadow of uncertainty over all transactions negotiated and executed under the

law of California.