Endumeni 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.

Keywords

• Parol evidence rule
• nature and effeect
• evidence inadmissible under rule
• not admissible to interpret contract
• rule and modern approach to interpretation not incompatible