ISO PAROL EVIDENCE WHEN NOT RECEIVABLE. 



dant, and the latter requested tlie auctioneer to ]uit liim down as the 

 purchaser of lot (3, and he accordingly inserted ("Mr. L.") after the 

 words "Mr. Shelton " in the minute. The wheat proved not to be 

 spring wheat, but red Lammas wheat, which, though sown in the 

 spring, is more liable to blight and mildew. The defendant had offered 

 to sell the crop to a third person, and had paid the plaintiff a £'d 5s. 

 deposit ; but as the crop became damaged with mildew, he refused to 

 complete the bargain. In an action for the price, parol evidence was 

 offered to prove that the auctioneer had explained, in defendant's 

 presence, at the time of the sale, that the wheat in question was not 

 spring wheat, and that the keep of the field with respect to this lot was 

 not to be sold. To this it was objected for the defendant, that as a 

 written instrument was signed by the auctioneer, the accredited agent 

 of both parties, at the time of the sale, with the purchaser's name, its 

 terms could not be varied by parol, and it could alone be looked at to 

 ascertain what was the contract between the parties. The Court of 

 Exchequer could not see anything in the distinction which was taken 

 between the case of Shelton as buyer and Livius as buyer, and confirmed 

 the nonsuit. 



The general rule is that parol evidence is not receivalle wMch goes to 

 vary and liniit the ivritten contract hetween the parties. Thus where the 

 printed conditions of sale of timber growing in a close did not state 

 anything of the quantity, parol evidence that the auctioneer at the 

 time of sale warranted a certain quantity is not admissible as varying 

 the wi-itten contract (Powell v. Edmunds). The case of Gh-eaves v. 

 Ashlin is also decisive that parol evidence is not admissible ivith respect to 

 terms ivhich appear on the face of the contract. In Jeffrey v. Walton the 

 memorandum was clearly imperfect, and some evidence was necessarily 

 required to show the other parts of the agreement. 



In Bmith v. Jeffryes, the Court of Exchequer considered that the 

 plaintiff, who sued in assumpsit for the non-delivery of sixty tons of 

 " Ware 'potatoes" at £5 per ton, according to a written agreement, had 

 no right to show that he had in fact contracted for the sale of a par- 

 ticular Jcind of Ware potatoes, viz., " Regent's Wares," while those 

 offered by the defendant were of an inferior kind, or " Kidney Wares." 

 There were three qualities of potatoes in that part of Kent where the 

 contract was made— Wares, Middlings, and Chats — of which the Wares 

 were the largest and best. The plaintiff had a verdict, but the Court 

 granted a new trial for improper reception of evidence. Again, on 

 a v:arranty of prime singed bacon, evidence was held not admissible 

 of a practice in the bacon trade to receive bacon to a certain degree 

 tainted as prime singed bacon {Yates v. Fym). And so parol evidence 



