In addition, extrinsic evidence is permitted when the validity of the contract itself is called into question. Section 92, subject to (1) of the IEA, reinforces this rule and provides: That oral evidence be admissible to prove that a contract is invalid or non-valid for fraud, coercion or illegality of the object.8 Oral evidence is also admitted to prove fraudulent misrepresentation.9 A full contractual clause has no bearing on the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in the case of proving liability of a contractor in the event of misrepresentation or evidence of impermanence of a contract. It is therefore recommended that the text of a full contractual clause be carefully considered and, if necessary, advised. Although limited in some respects, whole agreements remain valuable to give the parties additional certainty as to the nature and extent of the agreement reached, as well as some protection from the unpleasant arguments that statements made during the negotiation of the contract are part of the final agreement or even an ancillary agreement. Courts should not determine whether an agreement is complete and integrated, whether there is ambiguity about the agreement or certain conditions, or whether there is disagreement or dispute between the parties. In other words, the language of the treaty is the best evidence of the parties` intent; if there is clear language that indicates that the parties are terminating the intention, the courts respect it. The judge stated that the purpose of such clauses is to prevent part of a written agreement that encircles the undergrowth and find, during the negotiations, a remark or explanation (accidental) (often forgotten or difficult to recall or explain) on which a right such as this can be based on the existence of a secondary guarantee if the objective of an entire agreement sends to exclude the implied conditions , it is necessary to consider whether the text of the whole agreement clause is sufficiently precise for this intention to be clarified. In the case of Exxonmobil, it was the explicit reference to «use» that allowed one of the parties to invoke the entire contractual clause to prevent the use of terms. The general rule is that the entire agreement clause concludes the parties to conduct all oral evidence to prove the terms of the contract1, since the parties expressed by the whole of the agreement clause their intention that the document contains all the terms of their agreement2 and this supports the rule of evidence parol under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 («IEA») 3. There are, however, some exceptions to this general rule. If the contract does not contain all the conditions between the parties and the contract remains silent on the other conditions, the parties may present oral evidence of their negotiations to interpret or complete the contract4. However, these other clauses must not be inconsistent with the written contract.5 In addition, extrinsic evidence may create ambiguities with respect to the contract, but not in cases where the contractual clauses are clear.6 A full contractual clause in a contract stipulates that the contract constitutes the whole agreement between the parties and must prevent the parties from availing themselves of previous agreements. , negotiations or discussions that have not been established in the agreement.
Entire contractual clauses are often part of the «boiler plate» provisions of commercial contracts, which may be the temptation not to pay much attention to them.