英国硕士论文：合同和口头证据规则异常
澳大利亚法院的唯一方法可以执行任何此类违约补救的口头承诺证明起草合同本身并不好。一些形成缺陷必须是确定的合同,使整个合同无法执行。合同的写作必须是这样的,它有一些强大的元素的错误当比较它与原合同的意图,因此基于这些元素,该合同可能无效。在应用程序中集成规则的口头规则,法院已经确认异常。例如,一个政党可能带来挑战合同的有效性的证据。合同本身可以被证明是无效或无效。在这种情况下,最初的书面合同没有,没有必要应用口头规则,作为口头证据通常是唯一认可的一个容许和法律认可的合同。
英国硕士论文：合同和口头证据规则异常
次,有可能涉及的人员中显示该合同是病情悬而不决的。悬而不决的条件是这样的情况下,合同只会被认为是基于某些未来事件的结果。这样的事件还没有发生,那么它可能对于承包代理要求外在证据被包括在法庭诉讼。在某些情况下,合同中没有明确的意义。法院将无法宣判合同显然考虑到合同的情况下。在这种情况下,法院试图尽可能保守当包括外在证据作为口头证据规则的例外。
英国硕士论文：合同和口头证据规则异常
The only way Australian courts could enforce any such remedy for breach of oral promise is to prove that the contract itself is not well drafted. Some formation defect has to be identified in the contract that makes the entire contract as unenforceable. The writing of the contract has to be such that it has some strong elements of mistake when comparing it with the original intention to contract and hence based on those elements, the contract could be held void. In the integration rule in the application of the Parol rule, the court has identified for exceptions, too. For instance, a party might bring evidence that challenges the validity of the contract. The contract itself can be proven to be not valid or void. In such cases, where the original contract in writing does not hold, it is not necessary to apply the Parol rule at all, as Parol evidence is usually only recognized in the context of an admissible and legally recognized contract.
英国硕士论文：合同和口头证据规则异常
Secondly, it is possible for the persons involved in the context to show that the contract was in a suspensive condition. Suspensive conditions are such cases where a contract would be considered only based on the outcome of some future event. Where such an event has not happened, then it could be possible for the contracting agent to ask for extrinsic evidence to be included in the court proceedings. In some cases, there is no clear meaning in the contract. The court would not be able to adjudge the contract clearly given the contract circumstances. In such cases the courts try to be as conservative as possible when including extrinsic evidence as exception to the Parol evidence rule.
