Opinion ID: 1447807
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Restrictive view

Text: Under the restrictive plain meaning view of the parol evidence rule, evidence of prior negotiations may be used for interpretation only upon a finding that some language in the contract is unclear, ambiguous, or vague. E. Allan Farnsworth, FARNSWORTH ON CONTRACTS § 7.12, at 270 (1990) (FARNSWORTH). Under this approach, if a writing, or the term in question, appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face, its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument without resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. Calamari & Perillo, supra § 310, at 166-67; cf. Gottsfield, supra, at 388-89. Thus, if the judge finds from the face of a document that it conveys only one meaning, parol evidence is neither considered nor admitted for any purpose. The danger here, of course, is that what appears plain and clear to one judge may not be so plain to another (as in this case), and the judge's decision, uninformed by context, may not reflect the intent of the parties.