Business Law: Wagner v. Columbia Chad Jenkins

1. Did Wagner’s offered evidence of the “Love Song” agreement explain or contradict the

“Charlie’s Angels” contract? Explain the court’s reasoning.

It contradicts it. The court stated the problem with Wagner’s extrinsic evidence is that is

does not explain the contract language. Under the parole evidence rule, extrinsic

evidence is not admissible to contradict express terms in a written contract. The contract

stated the conditions which the parties were to share the films profits, and those

conditions had not occurred. Columbia obtained their rights to the film separately.

2. Briefly explain the parole evidence rule. How does the parole evidence rule apply to the

following quotation: …Justice Holmes explained, parole evidence is not admissible to

show that when the parties ‘said five hundred feet they agreed it should mean one

hundred inches, or that Bunker Hill Monument should signify the Old South Church

[Goode v. Riley, 153 Mass. 585, 28 N.E. 228 (1891)].’ ”

The parole evidence rule prohibits the introduction at trial of evidence of the parties’

prior negotiations, prior agreements, or contemporaneous oral agreements that contradicts

or varies the terms of the party’s written contract. The written contract is assumed to be

the complete embodiment of the party’s agreement. Justice Holmes was making a point

that if the contract says one thing then an oral agreement cannot be admissible to

contradict what is written. For example a contract may state five hundred feet, however

the plaintiff may state that he was in an oral agreement of hundred inches. A written

contract is the final agreement and cannot be changed unless it is ambiguous.

Business Law: Wagner v. Columbia Chad Jenkins

3. Why is it a good idea the contracts be written? How might the plain meaning doctrine and

the parole evidence rule be more complicated to apply if a contract was oral rather than

written?

If one once to enter into a legal agreement where the courts can protect both parties, then

it should be written in a contract. Contract law assures the parties to private agreements

that the covenant they make will be enforced. There are a lot of times someone will not

go through with an agreement, in these cases it is always crucial to have a written

contract. If a contract was oral and not written then it would be extremely difficult as the

courts would have to determine who is telling the truth. In this situation it would be

ambiguous as it is determined a “he said, she said” circumstance. When a contract is

written and clear to understanding, then one cannot argue the facts and what is written.