skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

Endumeni and the Parol Evidence Rule: Do They Coexist?

Potchefstroom electronic law journal, 2023-10, Vol.26 (1), p.1-27 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. ;ISSN: 1727-3781 ;EISSN: 1727-3781 ;DOI: 10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a13383

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    Endumeni and the Parol Evidence Rule: Do They Coexist?
  • Author: Wallis, Malcolm
  • Subjects: evidence inadmissible under rule ; Law ; nature and effeect ; not admissible to interpret contract ; Parol evidence rule ; rule and modern approach to interpretation not incompatible
  • Is Part Of: Potchefstroom electronic law journal, 2023-10, Vol.26 (1), p.1-27
  • Description: A recent judgment of the SCA in Capitec Bank Holdings v Coral Lagoon Investments suggested that the parol evidence rule is likely to become a residual rule of little practical importance in view of the expansive approach to interpretation flowing from the judgment in Endumeni and applied by the Constitutional Court in University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary. The article analyses the court's concern in the light of the two judgments and suggests that it is misplaced. The parol evidence rule is still of full force and effect and evidence inadmissible under the rule is not admissible as context in interpreting contracts.
  • Publisher: North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus)
  • Language: English;Portuguese;Afrikaans
  • Identifier: ISSN: 1727-3781
    EISSN: 1727-3781
    DOI: 10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a13383
  • Source: Sabinet African Journals Open Access Collection
    SciELO
    African Journals Online (Open Access)
    ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
    DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait