parole evidence rule in Tennessee

1964It is settled law that when parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate ihte- *484 gration of that contract, evidence, whether parole or otherwise, of antecedent understandings, etc., will not be admitted for the purpose of varying’ or contradicting the writing. 4 Williston on Contracts (3d Ed.) sec. 631, p. 948; 3 Corbin on Contracts sec. 573, p. 357; Marron v. Scarbrough, 44 Tenn.App. 414 , 314 S.W.(2d) 165 ; McGannon v. Farrell, 141 Tenn. 631 , 214 S.W. 432 ; Litterer v. Wright, 151 Tenn. 210 , 268 S.W. 624 ;

1958As was said by Mr. Justice Chambliss, later Chief Justice, speaking for the Supreme Court in Litterer v. Wright, 151 Tenn. 210 , 268 S. W. 624 : “The fundamental distinction should be kept clearly in mind between the denied right to contradict the terms of the writing, and the recognized right without so doing to resist recovery thereon, or to rely upon matters unexpressed therein.

1982Thus, we feel that evidence of the background to this lease is both relevant and admissible: “No one disputes the proposition that you cannot vary the terms of a written contract nor contradict it by oral evidence, but these rules do not restrain the Court from a survey of the whole situation and an ascertainment of that which the parties had in mind and the purpose or object to be obtained by a proposed agreement.” Frierson v. International Agricultural Corp., 24 Tenn.App. 616 , 148 S.W.2d 27 (1940).

1982Thus, we feel that evidence of the background to this lease is both relevant and admissible: “No one disputes the proposition that you cannot vary the terms of a written contract nor contradict it by oral evidence, but these rules do not restrain the Court from a survey of the whole situation and an ascertainment of that which the parties had in mind and the purpose or object to be obtained by a proposed agreement.” Frierson v. International Agricultural Corp., 24 Tenn.App. 616 , 148 S.W.2d 27 (1940).

1964It is settled law that when parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate ihte- *484 gration of that contract, evidence, whether parole or otherwise, of antecedent understandings, etc., will not be admitted for the purpose of varying’ or contradicting the writing. 4 Williston on Contracts (3d Ed.) sec. 631, p. 948; 3 Corbin on Contracts sec. 573, p. 357; Marron v. Scarbrough, 44 Tenn.App. 414 , 314 S.W.(2d) 165 ; McGannon v. Farrell, 141 Tenn. 631 , 214 S.W. 432 ; Litterer v. Wright, 151 Tenn. 210 , 268 S.W. 624 ;

1964Petty v. Sloan, 197 Tenn. 630 , 277 S.W. 355 .

1964While it is likewise the rule as contended by plaintiff-in-error that in contract cases evidence as to prior negotiations between the contracting parties may be looked to to determine the meaning of the terms and provisions of the contract, Turner v. Zager, 50 Tenn.App. 674 , 363 S.W.(2d) 512 ; Bailey v. Brister, 49 Tenn.App. 191 , 353 S.W.(2d) 564 ; Commerce Street Co. Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 31 Tenn.App. 314 , 215 S.W.(2d) 4 , it, obviously, is not the intention of the law that this rule shall emasculate the parole evidence rule.

1964While it is likewise the rule as contended by plaintiff-in-error that in contract cases evidence as to prior negotiations between the contracting parties may be looked to to determine the meaning of the terms and provisions of the contract, Turner v. Zager, 50 Tenn.App. 674 , 363 S.W.(2d) 512 ; Bailey v. Brister, 49 Tenn.App. 191 , 353 S.W.(2d) 564 ; Commerce Street Co. Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 31 Tenn.App. 314 , 215 S.W.(2d) 4 , it, obviously, is not the intention of the law that this rule shall emasculate the parole evidence rule.

1964While it is likewise the rule as contended by plaintiff-in-error that in contract cases evidence as to prior negotiations between the contracting parties may be looked to to determine the meaning of the terms and provisions of the contract, Turner v. Zager, 50 Tenn.App. 674 , 363 S.W.(2d) 512 ; Bailey v. Brister, 49 Tenn.App. 191 , 353 S.W.(2d) 564 ; Commerce Street Co. Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 31 Tenn.App. 314 , 215 S.W.(2d) 4 , it, obviously, is not the intention of the law that this rule shall emasculate the parole evidence rule.

1964While it is likewise the rule as contended by plaintiff-in-error that in contract cases evidence as to prior negotiations between the contracting parties may be looked to to determine the meaning of the terms and provisions of the contract, Turner v. Zager, 50 Tenn.App. 674 , 363 S.W.(2d) 512 ; Bailey v. Brister, 49 Tenn.App. 191 , 353 S.W.(2d) 564 ; Commerce Street Co. Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 31 Tenn.App. 314 , 215 S.W.(2d) 4 , it, obviously, is not the intention of the law that this rule shall emasculate the parole evidence rule.

1964It is settled law that when parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate ihte- *484 gration of that contract, evidence, whether parole or otherwise, of antecedent understandings, etc., will not be admitted for the purpose of varying’ or contradicting the writing. 4 Williston on Contracts (3d Ed.) sec. 631, p. 948; 3 Corbin on Contracts sec. 573, p. 357; Marron v. Scarbrough, 44 Tenn.App. 414 , 314 S.W.(2d) 165 ; McGannon v. Farrell, 141 Tenn. 631 , 214 S.W. 432 ; Litterer v. Wright, 151 Tenn. 210 , 268 S.W. 624 ;

1964It is settled law that when parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate ihte- *484 gration of that contract, evidence, whether parole or otherwise, of antecedent understandings, etc., will not be admitted for the purpose of varying’ or contradicting the writing. 4 Williston on Contracts (3d Ed.) sec. 631, p. 948; 3 Corbin on Contracts sec. 573, p. 357; Marron v. Scarbrough, 44 Tenn.App. 414 , 314 S.W.(2d) 165 ; McGannon v. Farrell, 141 Tenn. 631 , 214 S.W. 432 ; Litterer v. Wright, 151 Tenn. 210 , 268 S.W. 624 ;

1964It is settled law that when parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate ihte- *484 gration of that contract, evidence, whether parole or otherwise, of antecedent understandings, etc., will not be admitted for the purpose of varying’ or contradicting the writing. 4 Williston on Contracts (3d Ed.) sec. 631, p. 948; 3 Corbin on Contracts sec. 573, p. 357; Marron v. Scarbrough, 44 Tenn.App. 414 , 314 S.W.(2d) 165 ; McGannon v. Farrell, 141 Tenn. 631 , 214 S.W. 432 ; Litterer v. Wright, 151 Tenn. 210 , 268 S.W. 624 ;

1964It is settled law that when parties have made a contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete and accurate ihte- *484 gration of that contract, evidence, whether parole or otherwise, of antecedent understandings, etc., will not be admitted for the purpose of varying’ or contradicting the writing. 4 Williston on Contracts (3d Ed.) sec. 631, p. 948; 3 Corbin on Contracts sec. 573, p. 357; Marron v. Scarbrough, 44 Tenn.App. 414 , 314 S.W.(2d) 165 ; McGannon v. Farrell, 141 Tenn. 631 , 214 S.W. 432 ; Litterer v. Wright, 151 Tenn. 210 , 268 S.W. 624 ;

1964While it is likewise the rule as contended by plaintiff-in-error that in contract cases evidence as to prior negotiations between the contracting parties may be looked to to determine the meaning of the terms and provisions of the contract, Turner v. Zager, 50 Tenn.App. 674 , 363 S.W.(2d) 512 ; Bailey v. Brister, 49 Tenn.App. 191 , 353 S.W.(2d) 564 ; Commerce Street Co. Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 31 Tenn.App. 314 , 215 S.W.(2d) 4 , it, obviously, is not the intention of the law that this rule shall emasculate the parole evidence rule.

1964While it is likewise the rule as contended by plaintiff-in-error that in contract cases evidence as to prior negotiations between the contracting parties may be looked to to determine the meaning of the terms and provisions of the contract, Turner v. Zager, 50 Tenn.App. 674 , 363 S.W.(2d) 512 ; Bailey v. Brister, 49 Tenn.App. 191 , 353 S.W.(2d) 564 ; Commerce Street Co. Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 31 Tenn.App. 314 , 215 S.W.(2d) 4 , it, obviously, is not the intention of the law that this rule shall emasculate the parole evidence rule.