parol evidence rule in North Carolina

2014Id. (quoting Neal v. Marrone, 239 N.C. 73, 77 , 79 S.E. 2d 239, 242 (1953)). {35} A merger clause reinforces the parol evidence rule by “creat[ing] a rebuttable presumption that the writing represents the final agreement between the parties.” Zinn v. Walker, 87 N.C.

2014Id. (quoting Neal v. Marrone, 239 N.C. 73, 77 , 79 S.E. 2d 239, 242 (1953)). {35} A merger clause reinforces the parol evidence rule by “creat[ing] a rebuttable presumption that the writing represents the final agreement between the parties.” Zinn v. Walker, 87 N.C.

2009“The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict” the terms of an integrated written agreement, Hall v. Hotel L’Europe, Inc., 69 N.C.

2007“The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict” the terms of an integrated written agreement, Hall v. Hotel L’Europe, Inc., 69 N.C.

2017App. 704, 709 , 567 S.E.2d 184, 188 (2002) (“Generally, the parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of evidence to contradict or add to the terms of a clear and unambiguous contract.”).

2016See Thompson v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 151 N.C.App. 704 , 709, 567 S.E.2d 184 , 188 (2002) ( "Generally, the parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of evidence to contradict or add to the terms of a clear and unambiguous contract.").

2020App. 753, 755 , 647 S.E.2d 141, 143 (2007) (“The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict the terms of an integrated written agreement, though an ambiguous term may be explained or construed with the aid of parol evidence.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2020App. 753, 755 , 647 S.E.2d 141, 143 (2007) (“The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict the terms of an integrated written agreement, though an ambiguous term may be explained or construed with the aid of parol evidence.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2007The parol evidence rule, however, does not bar the admission of such evidence “to prove that a written contract was procured by fraud because ‘the allegations of fraud challenge the validity of the contract itself, not the accuracy of its terms[.]’” Godfrey v. Res-Care, Inc., 165 N.C.

2005The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of evidence "`to vary, add to, or contradict [the terms of] a written instrument intended to be the final integration of the transaction.'" Godfrey v. Res-Care, Inc., 165 N.C.App. 68, 76 , 598 S.E.2d 396, 402 (quoting Hall v. Hotel L'Europe, Inc., 69 N.C.App. 664, 666 , 318 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1984)), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 67 , 604 S.E.2d 310 (2004).

1976The parol evidence rule in North Carolina was stated by Chief Justice Stacy in Insurance Co. v. Morehead, 209 N.C. 174 , 183 S.E. 606 (1936), as follows: “It is well-nigh axiomatic that no verbal agreement between the parties to a written contract, made *308 before or at the time of the execution of such contract, is admissible to vary its terms or to contradict its provisions. [Citing- numerous cases.] . . -.

1976The parol evidence rule in North Carolina was stated by Chief Justice Stacy in Insurance Co. v. Morehead, 209 N.C. 174 , 183 S.E. 606 (1936), as follows: “It is well-nigh axiomatic that no verbal agreement between the parties to a written contract, made *308 before or at the time of the execution of such contract, is admissible to vary its terms or to contradict its provisions. [Citing- numerous cases.] . . -.

2017See Borden, Inc. v. Brower, 284 N.C. 54, 59 , 199 S.E.2d 414, 418 (1973); Moore v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 129 N.C.

2013In explaining Vending Co., the Borden Court stated: “Although that opinion does contain a general statement to the effect that a promise set forth in the note could not be contradicted or destroyed by parol testimony, the opinion actually affirmed a judgment that embodies the mode of payment or method of discharge exception to the parol evidence rule.” Borden, 284 N.C. at 65 , 148 S.E.2d at 422 (emphasis added).

2005"The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict a written instrument intended to be the final integration of the transaction." Hall v. Hotel L'Europe, Inc., 69 N.C.App. 664, 666 , 318 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1984). "`The rule is otherwise where it is shown that the writing is not a full integration of the terms of the contract,'" Vestal v. Vestal, 49 N.C.App. 263, 266 , 271 S.E.2d 306, 308 (1980) (citation omitted), or "[w]hen a contract is ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to show and make certain the intention behind the contract," Dockery v. Q

2005"The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict a written instrument intended to be the final integration of the transaction." Hall v. Hotel L'Europe, Inc., 69 N.C.App. 664, 666 , 318 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1984). "`The rule is otherwise where it is shown that the writing is not a full integration of the terms of the contract,'" Vestal v. Vestal, 49 N.C.App. 263, 266 , 271 S.E.2d 306, 308 (1980) (citation omitted), or "[w]hen a contract is ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to show and make certain the intention behind the contract," Dockery v. Q

2000See Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N.C. 222, 230 , 63 S.E. 1028, 1032 (1909).

2000See Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N.C. 222, 230 , 63 S.E. 1028, 1032 (1909).

1981See, Metropolitan Furniture Leasing, Inc. v. Horne, 29 N.C.

1981See Stewart v. Thrower, 212 N.C. 541 , 193 S.E. 701 (1937); Furniture Leasing v. Horne, 29 N.C.

2026Furthermore, “[e]vidence of conduct by the parties after executing the contract is not subject to the parol evidence rule, and is admissible to show intent and meaning.” Cordaro v. Singleton, 31 N.C.

1989“Evidence of conduct by the parties after executing the contract is not subject to the parol evidence rule, and is admissible to show intent and meaning.” Cordaro v. Singleton, 31 N.C.

2020Turner v. Hammocks Beach Corp., 363 N.C. 555, 560 , 681 S.E.2d 770, 774 (2009) (“[I]f the writing itself leaves it doubtful or uncertain as to what the agreement was, parol evidence is competent, not to contradict, but to show and make certain what was the real agreement between the parties.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Z.A.

2020Turner v. Hammocks Beach Corp., 363 N.C. 555, 560 , 681 S.E.2d 770, 774 (2009) (“[I]f the writing itself leaves it doubtful or uncertain as to what the agreement was, parol evidence is competent, not to contradict, but to show and make certain what was the real agreement between the parties.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Z.A.

2007App. 68 , 598 S.E.2d 396, 403 (2004) (quoting Fox v. S. Appliances, Inc., 264 N.C. 267, 270 , 141 S.E.2d 522, 525 (1965)) (alteration in original). {90} In response to Gateway’s contention, Mullen/LHC asserts that the written insertion orders bar any claim that the agreement was non-cancelable for one year because they provide expressly for cancellation on 60-days notice and contain an integration or “merger” clause affirming that the documents are a complete statement of the contract terms.

2007App. 68 , 598 S.E.2d 396, 403 (2004) (quoting Fox v. S. Appliances, Inc., 264 N.C. 267, 270 , 141 S.E.2d 522, 525 (1965)) (alteration in original). {90} In response to Gateway’s contention, Mullen/LHC asserts that the written insertion orders bar any claim that the agreement was non-cancelable for one year because they provide expressly for cancellation on 60-days notice and contain an integration or “merger” clause affirming that the documents are a complete statement of the contract terms.

2005"The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict a written instrument intended to be the final integration of the transaction." Hall v. Hotel L'Europe, Inc., 69 N.C.App. 664, 666 , 318 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1984). "`The rule is otherwise where it is shown that the writing is not a full integration of the terms of the contract,'" Vestal v. Vestal, 49 N.C.App. 263, 266 , 271 S.E.2d 306, 308 (1980) (citation omitted), or "[w]hen a contract is ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to show and make certain the intention behind the contract," Dockery v. Q

2005"The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict a written instrument intended to be the final integration of the transaction." Hall v. Hotel L'Europe, Inc., 69 N.C.App. 664, 666 , 318 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1984). "`The rule is otherwise where it is shown that the writing is not a full integration of the terms of the contract,'" Vestal v. Vestal, 49 N.C.App. 263, 266 , 271 S.E.2d 306, 308 (1980) (citation omitted), or "[w]hen a contract is ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to show and make certain the intention behind the contract," Dockery v. Q

2019The parol evidence rule provides "that, in the absence of fraud or mistake or allegation thereof, parol testimony of prior or contemporaneous negotiations or conversations inconsistent with the writing, or which tend to substitute a new or different contract from the one evidenced by the writing, is incompetent." Phelps v. Spivey , 126 N.C.

2009"The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law, though it is often expressed as if it were a rule of evidence." Phelps v. Spivey, 126 N.C.App. 693, 697 , 486 S.E.2d 226, 229 (1997); see also Hinshaw v. Wright, 105 N.C.App. 158, 164 , 412 S.E.2d 138, 142 (1992); Weiss v. Woody, 80 N.C.App. 86, 91 , 341 S.E.2d 103, 106 (1986), cert. den., 316 N.C. 738 , 345 S.E.2d 399 (1986).

2018Emp’t Staffing Grp., Inc. v. Little, 243 N.C.

2017App. __, 777 S.E.2d 309, 313 (2015) (quoting Phelps-Dickson Builders, LLC v. Amerimann Partners, 172 N.C.

2017Consideration of this affidavit would violate the parol evidence rule, which "prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict a written instrument," Van Harris Realty, Inc. v. Coffey , 41 N.C.

1988The Court further stated that “the parol evidence rule evolved to lend stability to written contracts and prevent their upheaval in situations precisely like this.” Id. at 116 , 254 S.E. 2d at 186 .

2014Id. (quoting Neal v. Marrone, 239 N.C. 73, 77 , 79 S.E. 2d 239, 242 (1953)). {35} A merger clause reinforces the parol evidence rule by “creat[ing] a rebuttable presumption that the writing represents the final agreement between the parties.” Zinn v. Walker, 87 N.C.

2014App. 325, 333 , 361 S.E.2d 314, 318 (1987)).

2009"The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law, though it is often expressed as if it were a rule of evidence." Phelps v. Spivey, 126 N.C.App. 693, 697 , 486 S.E.2d 226, 229 (1997); see also Hinshaw v. Wright, 105 N.C.App. 158, 164 , 412 S.E.2d 138, 142 (1992); Weiss v. Woody, 80 N.C.App. 86, 91 , 341 S.E.2d 103, 106 (1986), cert. den., 316 N.C. 738 , 345 S.E.2d 399 (1986).

2009"The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law, though it is often expressed as if it were a rule of evidence." Phelps v. Spivey, 126 N.C.App. 693, 697 , 486 S.E.2d 226, 229 (1997); see also Hinshaw v. Wright, 105 N.C.App. 158, 164 , 412 S.E.2d 138, 142 (1992); Weiss v. Woody, 80 N.C.App. 86, 91 , 341 S.E.2d 103, 106 (1986), cert. den., 316 N.C. 738 , 345 S.E.2d 399 (1986).

2007Bank, 76 N.C.

2005The affidavit appellant seeks to admit would violate the parol evidence rule, which “prohibits the consideration of evidence as to anything which happened prior to or simultaneously with the making of a contract which would vary the terms of the agreement.” Harrell v. First Union Nat Bank, 76 N.C.

2005“The parol evidence rule excludes prior or contemporaneous oral agreements which are inconsistent with a written contract if the written contract contains the complete agreement of the parties.” Cable TV, Inc. v. Theatre Supply Co., 62 N.C.

2005App. 61, 64-65 , 302 S.E.2d 458, 460 (1983) (applying the parol evidence rule where the written contract included a merger clause similar to the one in the instant case).

1984Griffin v. Wheeler-Leonard & Co., 290 N.C. 185, 197 , 225 S.E. 2d 557, 564-5 (1976) (admitting evidence of statements made prior to signing of purchase contract).

1984Griffin v. Wheeler-Leonard & Co., 290 N.C. 185, 197 , 225 S.E. 2d 557, 564-5 (1976) (admitting evidence of statements made prior to signing of purchase contract).

1981See Robbins v. Trading Post, 253 N.C. 474 , 117 S.E. 2d 438 (1960); Gas Co. v. Day, 249 N.C. 482 , 106 S.E. 2d 678 (1959).

1981See Robbins v. Trading Post, 253 N.C. 474 , 117 S.E. 2d 438 (1960); Gas Co. v. Day, 249 N.C. 482 , 106 S.E. 2d 678 (1959).

1972The North Carolina position on the parol evidence rule is stated in Stern v. Benbow, 151 N.C. 460 , 66 S.E. 445 (1909).

1972The North Carolina position on the parol evidence rule is stated in Stern v. Benbow, 151 N.C. 460 , 66 S.E. 445 (1909).