Which of the following is an exception to the Parol Evidence Rule?

Which of the following is an exception to the Parol Evidence Rule?

• A. To admit prior negotiations to interpret the contract
• B. To correct a clerical error
• C. To supplement the terms of a partially-integrated writing
• D. To establish a defense against formation

Answer: (B)

The Parol Evidence Rule bars adding or contradicting terms in a final written contract, but a specific exception applies when there is a clerical error in the writing. If a contract’s wording reflects a clear drafting mistake—like a misprint, transposition, or arithmetic error—the court can reform or correct the document to match what the parties actually agreed to. The evidence is used to fix a misstatement in the writing, not to introduce new terms or change the agreement’s substance. Other scenarios involve interpretation, filling gaps, or defenses to formation, which are different kinds of exceptions and don’t amount to simply correcting a clerical mistake.

The Parol Evidence Rule bars adding or contradicting terms in a final written contract, but a specific exception applies when there is a clerical error in the writing. If a contract’s wording reflects a clear drafting mistake—like a misprint, transposition, or arithmetic error—the court can reform or correct the document to match what the parties actually agreed to. The evidence is used to fix a misstatement in the writing, not to introduce new terms or change the agreement’s substance.

Other scenarios involve interpretation, filling gaps, or defenses to formation, which are different kinds of exceptions and don’t amount to simply correcting a clerical mistake.