Moderne toepassing van die integrasiereël. Die kommissie het die volgende drie voorbeelde (wat om doelmatigheidsredes verbatim aangehaal word) van die moderne toepassing van die integrasiereël in die Engelse reg verskaf: (i) A proposes to enter into a contract with B under which he agrees to hire a car from B. The contract documentation provides that the minimum period of hire is to be twelve months. Just before signing the relevant document A says to B, “I take it that I can terminate this contract at any time on giving seven days’ notice.” B replies, “Certainly, you may.” After three months A gives B a week’s notice of termination and returns the car. B claims that the contract has another nine months to run and claims damages from A. The court should give judgment in A’s favour. Either there was a single contract made partly orally and partly in writing, the oral part overriding any inconsistent part of the writing, or the parties made an oral contract collateral to, and overriding, the written one. The parties’ expressed intention, as understood by the conversation, was that the contract could be terminated on a week’s notice. Evidence of the conversation would not be excluded by any parol evidence rule. (ii) On 1 July 1985 A makes B a present of a cheque in B’s favour for £1,000 dated 31 December 1985. B endorses the cheque in favour of C. On 1 November 1985 C presents the cheque to A’s bank and, when it is unpaid, immediately issues a writ for £1,000 against A, claiming as endorsee of that cheque. C alleges that at the time A drew the cheque he orally agreed with B that although the cheque was dated 31 December, it could be presented and would be honoured on or after 1 November. Evidence of the conversation between A and B should not be admitted. It will, however, not be excluded because of the parol evidence rule but because under section 3 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 cheques must be in writing. C cannot sue on the cheque and rely upon evidence of oral terms. (iii) A agrees “subject to contract” to sell his house to B for £50,000. Contracts are drawn up stating this price and are returned, signed, to the respective solicitors ready for exchange. Before exchange takes place, B complains to A that the price is too high and A agrees to reduce it by £5,000. Thinking that if they tell their solicitors of this reduction the legal fees will be increased, A and B agree to say nothing to the solicitors but confirm the reduction by exchange of letters. In due course, the solicitors exchange the ...
