Article Sidebar
Published:
Apr 29, 2024Keywords:
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright in all material published in PER/PELJ vests in the author, provided that authors grant, by submission of their contributions, permission that their contributions may be shared and adapted without restriction. An author furthermore agrees that the same contribution may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of the editor.
Anyone gaining access, electronically or otherwise, to a contribution to PER, may quote from such contribution, use the intellectual content thereof, share and adapt it, but subject to the following conditions:
you must give appropriate credit, provide a link and indicate if changes were made; and
the copyright of the author(s) may not be infringed in any way.
Main Article Content
<i>Endumeni</i> and the Parol Evidence Rule: Do They Coexist?
Abstract
A recent judgment of the SCA in Capitec Bank Holdings v Coral Lagoon Investments suggested that the parol evidence rule is likely to become a residual rule of little practical importance in view of the expansive approach to interpretation flowing from the judgment in Endumeni and applied by the Constitutional Court in University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary. The article analyses the court's concern in the light of the two judgments and suggests that it is misplaced. The parol evidence rule is still of full force and effect and evidence inadmissible under the rule is not admissible as context in interpreting contracts.
