5 ms·

IANAL, but I took a commerical law class in college. I feel like I remember there being a doctrine that if there's a written contract, agreements outside of the

by gradys 7y ago

IANAL, but I took a commerical law class in college. I feel like I remember there being a doctrine that if there's a written contract, agreements outside of the contract don't matter. (Which is not to say that verbal contracts aren't real contracts, but that if there's also a written contract, they overrule any unwritten agreements.)

bloak 7y ago
Yes, but most of the things people are talking about here are not contracts, I think, so I don't think the doctrine you're referring to would be applicable. Compare these two situations: Situation 1. There is a single document with the title "CONTRACT" signed by both parties. It starts with a list of definitions and continues with a list of things that each party promises to do. Situation 2. There is a whole pile of documents to be signed by just one of the parties, the word "contract" is not mentioned, and most of the sentences in the documents give information (warning, disclaimer, whatever) rather than express some kind of obligation. Some kind of (implicit) contract may be created in situation 2, and the documents may have some bearing on it, but the documents are clearly not "the contract". It's more like signing to receive a parcel than signing a contract.
- pfisch 7y ago
  It is absolutely a contract. This interpretation is just your personal opinion about how the world should work, and is not based at all in reality. These forms clearly meet the legal definition of a contract.
  - sjy 7y ago
    The purpose of a consent form is not usually to create a contract but to comply with a statute requiring written consent to be obtained.
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  ... What are you basing that on? In Canada at least that would absolutely be a contract. We must be very careful not to confuse "common sense" or "obvious" or "that's what it intuitively means to me" with "law". Lots of people do that and lots of them pay the price :-(
gnopgnip 7y ago
Agreements over an electronic messaging system are written agreements, and satisfy the statute of frauds, and are not automatically superseeded. Even if you have a written contract that has boilerplate language saying all future modifications need to be in writing, courts have enforced verbal modifications. A contract can always be modified, what matters is if both parties agree.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Guvante 7y ago
> if there's also a written contract, they overrule any unwritten agreements That typically only applies in situations where the agreement is otherwise ambiguous. The most common example being "A: We verbally agreed to $1 and I signed. B: But what you signed say $1.10" often in these situations the written contract win. However in this case they are in a written format explicitly clarifying the contents of the contract which you are allowed to do as long as the interpretation you agree to doesn't meaningfully diverge from what was written in a way that doesn't follow standard practice. As the doctor said it is common practice to avoid consuming alcohol with medicine that has known interactions with it. Even if the original contract is unambiguous no one is going to side against OP on the topic of "we both agreed that it meant when taking certain medicines" since the original verbiage didn't follow standard practice by the clarified verbiage did.
sjy 7y ago
You're probably thinking of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule.

by gradys 7y ago

bloak 7y ago

Yes, but most of the things people are talking about here are not contracts, I think, so I don't think the doctrine you're referring to would be applicable. Compare these two situations: Situation 1. There is a single document with the title "CONTRACT" signed by both parties. It starts with a list of definitions and continues with a list of things that each party promises to do. Situation 2. There is a whole pile of documents to be signed by just one of the parties, the word "contract" is not mentioned, and most of the sentences in the documents give information (warning, disclaimer, whatever) rather than express some kind of obligation. Some kind of (implicit) contract may be created in situation 2, and the documents may have some bearing on it, but the documents are clearly not "the contract". It's more like signing to receive a parcel than signing a contract.

pfisch 7y ago
It is absolutely a contract. This interpretation is just your personal opinion about how the world should work, and is not based at all in reality. These forms clearly meet the legal definition of a contract.
- sjy 7y ago
  The purpose of a consent form is not usually to create a contract but to comply with a statute requiring written consent to be obtained.
NikolaNovak 7y ago
... What are you basing that on? In Canada at least that would absolutely be a contract. We must be very careful not to confuse "common sense" or "obvious" or "that's what it intuitively means to me" with "law". Lots of people do that and lots of them pay the price :-(

gnopgnip 7y ago

Agreements over an electronic messaging system are written agreements, and satisfy the statute of frauds, and are not automatically superseeded. Even if you have a written contract that has boilerplate language saying all future modifications need to be in writing, courts have enforced verbal modifications. A contract can always be modified, what matters is if both parties agree.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Guvante 7y ago

> if there's also a written contract, they overrule any unwritten agreements That typically only applies in situations where the agreement is otherwise ambiguous. The most common example being "A: We verbally agreed to $1 and I signed. B: But what you signed say $1.10" often in these situations the written contract win. However in this case they are in a written format explicitly clarifying the contents of the contract which you are allowed to do as long as the interpretation you agree to doesn't meaningfully diverge from what was written in a way that doesn't follow standard practice. As the doctor said it is common practice to avoid consuming alcohol with medicine that has known interactions with it. Even if the original contract is unambiguous no one is going to side against OP on the topic of "we both agreed that it meant when taking certain medicines" since the original verbiage didn't follow standard practice by the clarified verbiage did.

sjy 7y ago

You're probably thinking of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule.