legal humor II

The parol evidence rule provides another good example of how the law lacks a sense of humor. The parol evidence rule forbids proof of extrinsic evidence to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument and, accordingly, one who seeks, in a breach of contract action, to enforce an oral representation or promise relating to the subject matter of the contract cannot succeed. Once an agreement is reduced to writing, a party cannot present evidence that contradicts that writing, such as evidence that the writing was done as a joke. In the case of Eskimo Pie corp. v. Whitelawn Dairies, Inc 284 F.supp. 987 (S.D.N.Y., 1968), the court refused to allow evidence that a "non-exclusive" term in a distribution contract was really just a ruse to throw off potential anti-trust prosecution. In just the same way that such evidence cannot be introduced, neither can evidence that a contract was written as a joke. Rememer Lucy v. Zehmer 196 Va. 493 (1954) where Lucy offers Zehmer $50,000 for his farm an Zehmer wrote out a note stating he promise to sell the house for this price! Turns out Zehmer thought it was a joke between old pals while they were drinking down at the tavern. I guess this was like their regular banter and the topic of the sale of the farm came up repeatedly from time to time. Was Lucy fraudulently getting Zehmer drunk in order to slip his farm out from under him or just taking advantage of his drunken state? The court finds that Lucy thought it was a "serious business transaction" and also notest that "Zehmer was not intoxicated to the extent of being unable to comprehend the nature and consequences of the instrument he executed." This was a case we looked at when we were learning about mutual assent and objective theory of contract formation, and the court doesn't discuss parol evidence, but I wonder why not? How could Zehmer even introduce evidence that contradicts the written contract, namely evidence that the written promise to sell was nothing more than a joke? Well, Zehmer, the law does not have a sense of humor, except in the minds of law students who recreate the scene of this "serious business transaction." I was just kidding, even if you can get it in, is not going to work as a reason to rescind a contract. How very different this is from a comedic play, for example, where the whole point of the play is to make the viewer believe the premise so as to allow the mind to suspend reality on all sorts of absurd circumstances. The purpose of the legal text is simply not humorous.