A recent judgment of the High Court of Abigak 1 General Trading – Investment CC against Gani and Another; Gani and Another v Balkin e.a. (1184/16; 6620/16)  LA ZAGPJHC 126 is an additional reminder of the importance of completing all the formalities necessary to reach an agreement, including with regard to the sale of real estate. However, with respect to the content or terms of the written agreement, there is a very clear legal standard, known as the Parol rule of evidence, which sets strict limits on evidence that can be presented for interpretation. The rule provides that if the parties intended to embody the agreement in its entirety and, ultimately, in writing, the evidence that contradicts or varies the terms of the letter or completes or withdraws it is inadmissible. There is no evidence of the conditions possibly given except for the document itself (or, if lost, secondary evidence of its contents), nor contradicting, modifying, supplementing or varying by oral evidence relating to what was disclosed between the parties, either prior to the establishment of the written act or during its manufacture. Once the parties have decided to enter a contract in writing, their decision must be respected and the resulting document must be accepted as the only proof of the terms of the contract. The document itself therefore reveals the obligations. Delegation or intercession is a form of innovation in which, with the agreement of all parties involved, a person outside the original contract is responsible for the implementation of the service agreed upon. Three parties are looking into this act: similarly, if there are not two ancillary agreements, but a compound contract, part of which is written and the rest oral, evidence may be provided to the evidence of the complementary oral part, provided it is clear that the parties did not intend to serve the written part as the exclusive monument of the whole agreement. In such a case, called “partial integration,” the integration rule simply prevents the granting of extrinsic evidence against or variance of the written part of the agreement.
The court may hear evidence regarding the circumstances of the environment, including the parties` negotiations, to determine whether they intended the written agreement to be an integration of their entire transaction or only partial integration. This declaration of law or the so-called Corondimas principle has been widely criticized, although it has been applied consistently in subsequent cases. Although it was re-applied by the appeal division of Tuckers Land and Development v Strydom on the basis of precedent, its accuracy was challenged and criticized for the fact that van Heerden YES and directly by Joubert JA. The latter indicated, during the verification of the former authorities, that the principle did not conform to Roman and Roman-Dutch laws. “It appears, however,” wrote Tebbutt J in ABSA/Sweet, “that a lease does not apply to such considerations and that a contract is established between the lessor and the taker at the time of signing the lease, although the obligations arising from the lease may be suspended.”  It now also appears to be accepted]] if a suspensive condition is met, namely that the contract and reciprocal rights of the parties “on the date of the agreement and not from the date of the completion of the condition, that is: