Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-202 (2026)
Final written expression; parol or extrinsic evidence
✓ current as of July 2026
Terms with respect to which the confirmatory memoranda of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement but may be explained or supplemented:
- (a) By course of performance, course of dealing or usage of trade (Section 75-1-303); and
- (b) By evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.
Codes, 1942, § 41A:2-202; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 2-202, eff. 3/31/1968; Laws, 2010, ch. 506, § 6, eff. 7/1/2010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1974–2003 · leading case: Turner v. Terry, 799 So. 2d 25 (Miss. 2001).
Turner v. Terry, 799 So. 2d 25 (Miss. 2001). “§ 75-1-103 (1972) explicitly provides that the common law principles of fraud and misrepresentation should supplement the commercial code provisions. On the basis of this background, this Court has continued to recognize the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule subsequent…”
H & W Indus., Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Occidental Chem. Corp., Cross-Appellee, 911 F.2d 1118 (5th Cir. 1990). “4 The District Court ruled that the evidence proffered by Occidental failed to meet the admissibility standards of 75-1-205(2) because “the parallel between the .”
Mid-South Packers, Inc. v. Shoney's, Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1985). “§ 75-l-205(3)-(4); Cf Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-202(a). Shoney’s remedy under the circumstances was either to reserve whatever right it might have had to the old price by sending its purchase orders with an “explicit reservation,” Miss.”
JO Hooker & Sons v. Roberts Cabinet, 683 So. 2d 396 (Miss. 1996). “Hooker's desire to have this contract interpreted under the provisions of the UCC is based on the fact that Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-202 (1972), which contains the UCC version of the parol evidence rule, provides a more permissive approach for the admission of extrinsic evidence…”
Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So. 2d 14 (Miss. 1974). “Noble contends that under the provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-202 (1972) the court erred by permitting parol testimony contradicting the terms of the agreement of the parties as expressed in the contract.”
Gen. Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Am. Air Filter Co., Inc., 696 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1983). “The trial court’s ruling was based upon Mississippi’s parol evidence rule, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-202 (1972), U.C.C. § 2-202.”
W.M. Phillips D/B/A Phillips Truck Stop, Cross-Appellant v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Cross-Appellee, 792 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1986). “Mississippi’s parol evidence rule provides that the terms of a written contract which expressly states that the contract contains the entire agreement of the parties may not be contradicted by evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement.”
Anderson v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 584 (S.D. Miss. 2003). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-202. A second exception is recognized in circumstances where “a party alleges that his entry into a contract was procured by fraudulent representations.”
MYGSA, S.A. DE C v. v. Howard Indus., Inc., 879 F. Supp. 624 (S.D. Miss. 1995). “Under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-202 (1972), parol evidence is not admissible to contradict the express terms of an agreement.”
Unknown. “” Miss. Code § 75-2-202. The integration clause of the October 31 contract evinces such an intent.”
J O Hooker & Sons Inc v. Roberts Cabinet Co Inc (Miss. 1992). “Hooker's desire to have this contract interpreted under the provisions of the UCC is based on the fact that Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-202 (1972), which contains the UCC version of the parol evidence rule, provides a more permissive approach for the admission of extrinsic evidence…”
Cornelius Turner v. Johnnie Terry, Jr. (Miss. 1998). “On the basis of this background, this Court has continued to recognize the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule subsequent to the passage of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-202 (1972). Franklin v.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-202(a): 1 case
Mid-South Packers, Inc. v. Shoney's, Inc., 761 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1985). “§ 75-l-205(3)-(4); Cf Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-202(a). Shoney’s remedy under the circumstances was either to reserve whatever right it might have had to the old price by sending its purchase orders with an “explicit reservation,” Miss.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.