Analyzing the Jurisdictional Arbitrage Potency of Indian Contract Law: With the Distinct Application of the Parol Evidence Rule of Contract Interpretation

The Common Law Parol Evidence Rule, is a principle of restraint in contract interpretation derived from common law courts i (specifically inclusive of the jury system, i.e., the United States of America-U.S.A, since 1630)- excluding the consideration of preceding, contemporaneous (oral-specifically exempting written stature), and successive (subject to jurisdiction: i.e., allowed in the U.S.A, but barred in the United Kingdom-U.K) statements, agreements, and conduct (oral, written and behavioural-subject to jurisdictional requisite) deemed ‘extrinsic/Parol evidence’, in the contrary/alternative interpretation of contracts, in the presence of attributed ‘written stature’ (expressly representative of the intentions of the parties). The objective of the rule is to sanctify the ‘written stature’ of contracts, with the attribution of inherent finality and determinative impetus. Post initial conception by common law courts as a tool, to direct the attention of juries, towards the specific written provisions of contracts subject to litigation, inhibiting bias upon the consideration of irrelevant prior evidence, being agreement/statement/conduct (not mutually exclusive) ii , capable of impeding the textual interpretation of contracts; the Evidence Parol Rule, has been subject to manifestation/rejection (wholly/partially), across several legal systemic-integration efforts, bearing legislative impetus-i.e., the United Nations Convention on Contacts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), the International Institute for Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT PICC) Principles of International Commercial Contracts, Principles of European Contract Law