Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1863, § 3729, former Code 1868, § 3753, former Code 1873, § 3806, former Code 1882, § 3806, former Civil Code 1895, § 5207, former Civil Code 1910, § 5794, former Code 1933, § 38-507, and former O.C.G.A. § 24-6-6 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Plea of accord and satisfaction may be supported by parol evidence that the notes sued on were paid in full and satisfied by the surrender of the property described in the mortgage deed (given to secure the debt) in full and complete satisfaction of the debt; that the owner and holder of the note accepted the property in settlement of the notes sued on; and that the settlement was beneficial to the then owners and the holders of the notes, in that it enabled the owners to obtain property without the expense of foreclosure. Butts v. Maryland Cas. Co., 52 Ga. App. 838, 184 S.E. 774 (1936) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-507).

Admissible testimony generally.

- When there is strong presumptive evidence that, subsequently to the execution of a written contract, the parties agreed orally upon a new contract, which was a modification of the former, testimony may be received of negotiations and conversations between these parties previous to the written contract for the purpose of throwing light upon, and showing more clearly, the nature and character of the subsequent agreement. Collins v. Lester, 16 Ga. 410 (1954) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-507).

Agreement must be based on valuable consideration.

- While parol evidence was admissible to prove a new and distinct agreement subsequent to the original written contract in reference to the same subject matter, such new agreement must be based upon a valuable consideration. Phelps v. Belle Isle, 29 Ga. App. 571, 116 S.E. 217 (1923) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5794); Guthrie v. Rowan, 34 Ga. App. 671, 131 S.E. 93 (1925); Moon Motor Car Co. v. Savannah Motor Car Co., 41 Ga. App. 231, 152 S.E. 611 (1930) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5794); Alexander Film Co. v. Brittain, 63 Ga. App. 384, 11 S.E.2d 66 (1940); P & O Mach. Works, Inc. v. Pollard, 115 Ga. App. 96, 153 S.E.2d 631 (1967) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5794); American Century Mtg. Investors v. Bankamerica Realty Investors, 246 Ga. 39, 268 S.E.2d 609 (1980); Llop v. National Bank, 154 Ga. App. 504, 268 S.E.2d 777 (1980) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-507);(decided under former Code 1933, § 38-507);(decided under former Code 1933, § 38-507);(decided under former Code 1933, § 38-507).

Agreement must embody essentials of new contract. Phelps v. Belle Isle, 29 Ga. App. 571, 116 S.E. 217 (1923) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5794); Guthrie v. Rowan, 34 Ga. App. 671, 131 S.E. 93 (1925);(decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5794).

All previous verbal negotiations respecting a sale were merged in the subsequently written contract, and it was not permissible to prove a prior or contemporaneous parol agreement which had the effect of varying the terms of the written contract. Cottle v. Tomlinson, 192 Ga. 704, 16 S.E.2d 555 (1941) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-507).

Agreement to give collateral security.

- Parol agreement of parties subsequent to the execution of a contract of sale that the purchaser would turn over to the vendor a certain paper as collateral security was admissible. Loveless v. Bridges, 136 Ga. 338, 71 S.E. 166 (1911) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5794).

Agreement as to time of delivery.

- When a written contract for the purchase and sale of goods fixed no time for performance, it will be construed as implying that delivery will be made and accepted within a reasonable time, but parol evidence was admissible to prove a new and distinct subsequent agreement, mutually acted upon, that the deliveries would be made in installments at certain stated intervals. Breman v. Rodbell, 31 Ga. App. 358, 120 S.E. 697 (1923) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5794).

Evidence of agreement to rescind contract held admissible.

- See Manry v. Selph, 77 Ga. App. 808, 50 S.E.2d 27 (1948) (decided under former Code 1933, § 38-507); Flatauer v. Goodman, 84 Ga. App. 881, 67 S.E.2d 794 (1951);(decided under former Code 1933, § 38-507).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 29A Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 1125.

C.J.S.

- 32A C.J.S., Evidence, § 1213 et seq.

ALR.

- "Contractual" consideration as regards parol evidence rule, 100 A.L.R. 17.

Provision in sale contract to effect that only conditions incorporated therein shall be binding, 127 A.L.R. 132; 133 A.L.R. 1360.

Performance of work previously contracted for as consideration for promise to pay greater or additional amount, 12 A.L.R.2d 78; 85 A.L.R.3d 259.

Application of parol evidence rule in action on contract for architect's services, 69 A.L.R.3d 1353.

Enforceability of voluntary promise of additional compensation because of unforeseen difficulties in performance of existing contract, 85 A.L.R.3d 259.