Parol contemporaneous evidence shall be generally inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument.
History. Code 1981, § 24-3-1 , enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.
Law reviews.
For article, “The Parol Evidence Rule in Georgia,” see 17 Ga. B.J. 49 (1954).
For article discussing the advantages of contract rescission as a remedy for fraud, with respect to the parol evidence rule and the statute of frauds, in light of City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner, 232 Ga. 766 , 208 S.E.2d 794 (1974), see 11 Ga. St. B.J. 172 (1975).
For article discussing parol evidence in the law of commercial paper, see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 53 (1978).
For article, “Supplementing Written Agreements: Restating the Parol Evidence Rule in Terms of Credibility and Relative Fault,” see 34 Emory L.J. 93 (1985).
Structure Georgia Code
§ 24-3-1. Parol Evidence Contradicting Writing Inadmissible Generally
§ 24-3-2. Proof of Unwritten Portions of Contract Admissible Where Not Inconsistent
§ 24-3-3. Contemporaneous Writings Explaining Each Other; Parol Evidence Explaining Ambiguities
§ 24-3-4. Circumstances Surrounding Execution of Contracts
§ 24-3-7. Proof of Mistake in Deed or Written Contract
§ 24-3-8. Original or Subsequent Voidness of Writing