Is parol evidence admissible to prove an unfulfilled condition precedent?

Alberta, Canada


The following excerpt is from Toronto Dominion Bank v. Pacific Stereo (Edmonton) Ltd., 1985 CanLII 1356 (AB QB):

There are numerous exceptions to the parol evidence rule. One is that extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove an unfulfilled condition precedent. The classic decision cited in that regard if Pym v. Campbell, 119 E.R. 903. The exception in question is that extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that a document which, on its face, is an agreement between the parties is not in fact an agreement.

Other Questions


What are a number of cases that support the argument that objection to admissibility of evidence is to be made at the time the evidence is tendered? (Alberta, Canada)
Is new evidence submitted as fresh evidence admissible at trial? (Alberta, Canada)
When can a witness give evidence that is not in evidence at trial? (Alberta, Canada)
Can extrinsic evidence be adduced to prove that a consideration was not stated in a written deed? (Alberta, Canada)
How much evidence is required to prove cause of action? (Alberta, Canada)
What constitutes “non-expert opinion evidence” in identification evidence at trial? (Alberta, Canada)
Is a finder of fact not compelled to discount the evidence of a witness on a point when an opposing witness has not been confronted and challenged with the contrary version of the evidence? (Alberta, Canada)
Would the admission of the balloons in evidence constitute judicial condonation of unacceptable conduct by the investigatory or prosecutorial agencies? (Alberta, Canada)
Is a client’s instructions not to obey trust conditions an excuse for breach of trust conditions? (Alberta, Canada)
Can evidence that is not in the form of a written agreement be considered to prove otherwise? (Alberta, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.