The parol evidence rule is a substantive common law rule in contract cases that prevents a party to a written contract

from presenting extrinsic evidence that contradicts or adds to the written terms of the contract that appears to be whole. The supporting rationale is that since the contracting parties have reduced their agreement to a single and final writing, the extrinsic evidence of past agreements or terms should not be considered when interpreting that writing, as the parties had decided to ultimately leave them out of the contract. The rule applies to parol (oral) evidence, as well as other extrinsic evidence (such as written correspondence that does not form a separate contract) regarding a contract. If a contract is in writing and final to at least one term (integrated), parol or extrinsic evidence will generally be excluded. However, there are numerous exceptions to this general rule, including for partially integrated contracts, agreements with separate consideration, to resolve ambiguities, or to establish contract defenses. any evidence other than the contract. if we have a written contract, that contract is understood to include all the things we agreed upon such that we cannot add to it. meaning, we cannot introduce other evidence, oral or otherwise, to prove that we agreed about something not written in the contract the argument is that the parties (client and contractor), who are on equal footing, agreed on the terms as contained in the boq, and NOTHNG MORE frances yani Domingo: wala ba dung exclusionary clause, like, "all things not specified here are subject to future contracts", ganyan, hehe henrytdomingo: there are provisions for additional works, meaning variation orders frances yani Domingo: in any case, our argument is that walang provision sa BOQ so walang responsibility frances yani Domingo is typing... frances yani Domingo: and variation orders mean? henrytdomingo: meaning wla s original scope or lumaki yung quantities