Express Terms- The terms of the contract Breach of terms gives rise to a right to damages and, possibly, a right

to terminate the contract If a mere representation is not true, there is not a breach of contract because the representation is not a part of the contract. [discussed under misrep] Express TermExpress terms are terms that are specifically agreed between the parties. The parol evidence rule - a contract is embodied in a written document, then extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, vary, subtract from or contradict the terms of the written document- Jacobs v Batavia and General Plantations Trust However, Parol Evidence rule is a presumption onlyGillespie Bros & o v hene!, "ggar & o "#ception $% ontract partly written and partly oral- The parol evidence rule does not apply to a contract intended to be partly written and partly oral laimant as!ed both the defendant and the auctioneer to confirm that the condition of the item but in fact the item turned into what different with what " said although there was catalogue stated that the sale &ould be sub#ect to the auctioneer$s usual conditions- The ourt of %ppeal considered that the oral statements that the condition of the item had to be considered alongside the written conditionsv 'ill ouchman ontrast& oral evidence cannot be adduced to contradict the agreement( 'ector v )!ons "#ception *% ollateral contract- "#trinsic evidence of a collateral contract is admissible and the consideration consists in entering into the main &ritten contract in reliance on the oral promise. Enter into contract by accept the another promise from promisor, +hat " promised differ from the written agreement-collateral ctt formed- it! of +estminster Properties )td v ,udd onsideration to enter collateral contract that other party enter into main contract( 'ellibut v Buc-leton

ommentary& 't may be possible to avoid the argument that the contract is partly written and partly oral by the insertion of an (entire agreement clause) in the written contract. *uch a clause states that the written document is intended and agreed to contain the entirety of the contract, each party ac!nowledging that they have not relied on any representation or statement outside the written contract. Attn: this must depend whether is representation or a term

ommentar!% that the ,entire agreement, clause contained in the lease not only had the effect of rendering evidence of the alleged collateral warranty inadmissible, but also deprived the warranty of all legal effect and not in breach -isrepresentation %ct ./01 s.2- Inntrepreneur Pub o v "ast ro&n )td

"#ception .& ustomevidence of the customs of a localit! or trade usage ma! be admissible in the matter &hich the! are silent ['utton v +arren] ustom prevailed in interpretation 34orden *team o v "empsey5 even though literally did not match to the contract- The written contract referred to (.,666 rabbits) but a local custom of *uffol!, .,666 rabbits meant .,766 rabbits/mith v +ilson $0.* ontrast% % custom contrary to the express terms of the contractinadmissible1ffreteurs 2eunis /1, )es v )eopold +alford 3)ondon4 )td

"#ception 5% 8peration of the contractextrinsic evidence is permissible to show that the contract has not yet come into operation or has ceased to operate6ral evidence before signing contract admissible, that even signing the contract, it &ill not enforce until recognition of .rd part!( Pym v ampbell

"#ception 7% 9alidityextrinsic evidence is permissible to show that the written contract lac!s validity, e.g. for want of consideration, incapacity, misrepresentation or mista!e