Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2202 (2026)
Final expression: Parol or extrinsic evidence
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 104.2202 Final expression: Parol or extrinsic evidence. Terms with respect to which the confirmatory
memoranda of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a record
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:
1. By course of performance, course of dealing or usage of trade (NRS 104.1303); and
2. By evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the record to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.
(Added to NRS by 1965, 787; A 2005, 849; 2023, 3182)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d 1032 (Nev. 2004).
Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d 1032 (Nev. 2004). “103, 107 , 590 P.2d 163, 165 (1979) (stating that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent when the written contract is ambiguous).”
Galardi v. Naples Polaris, L.L.C., 301 P.3d 364 (Nev. 2013). “2d 967, 971 (1995) (quoting NRS 104.2202(1)); see Las Vegas Sands, LLC v.”
Sierra Diesel Injection Serv. v. Burroughs Corp., 651 F. Supp. 1371 (D. Nev. 1987). “PAROL EVIDENCE Defendant further argues that the plaintiffs allegations regarding any oral warranties or promises made before the contracts were signed must be disregarded by virtue of the parol evidence rule, codified at NRS § 104.2202. This section of the U.C.C.”
United Servs. Auto Ass'n v. Schlang, 894 P.2d 967 (Nev. 1995). “]" NRS 104.2202(1). Also, where a contract is ambiguous, "parol evidence is admissible to explain its meaning.”
Gallina Fam. Bank Irrevocable Trust v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co. (D. Nev. 2021). “§ 104.2202. 13 Nevada law allows the “course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade” 14 to “explain or supplement” a written agreement.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.2202(1) — 2 cases
Galardi v. Naples Polaris, L.L.C., 301 P.3d 364 (Nev. 2013). “2d 967, 971 (1995) (quoting NRS 104.2202(1)); see Las Vegas Sands, LLC v.”
United Servs. Auto Ass'n v. Schlang, 894 P.2d 967 (Nev. 1995). “]" NRS 104.2202(1). Also, where a contract is ambiguous, "parol evidence is admissible to explain its meaning.”
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.