There is widespread public dissatisfaction regarding the application of the PMLA and the Supreme Court's oversight of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Many comments criticize the law as draconian and misused for political repression, particularly against opposition parties. Users express a strong demand for judicial accountability and reform within the ED and call out the inefficiency and perceived bias of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court of India

Enforcement Directorate

Government of India


* Please provide a source to the image/video below the comment. If source is not provided then the post will be removed.

* Use the same title as that of the source link. Editorialised titles are not allowed

* If it is Original Content (video/pic taken by you) then please respond with OC below the comment

* If it's meme/satire, please use the meme/cartoon flair and provide the link to the original creator. Memes will be allowed as per mod discretion and can be removed without explanation.

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedstatesofindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

There are so many typos in this image. Is this AI generated slop?

aagg6

Imagine you are negotiating with me to hire me as a photographer for your wedding, and on the first day I verbally agree to reduce my price from $25,000 to $20,000. The second day when we meet to sign the contract, the written contract still says $25,000, and you sign it. Then on the third day, you and I agree that I will also do your engagement photographs.

Parol evidence rule will generally prevent you from introducing our negotiations on the *first* day to *contradict* the terms of the written agreement. If you can show that the written agreement is ambiguous in some way, you can use the oral agreement to explain or clarify the written document. However, parol evidence rule would *not* prevent you from introducing evidence of our agreement on the *third* day, because that oral agreement was not prior to the written agreement.

sultav

There are four things you need to figure out (and I recommend doing them in the following order:

1) is the dispute about the contents of the agreement or something else?  The most common “something else”s include the formation or the validity of the contract.

2) is the written agreement meant to be fully integrated. That is, is this meant to be the only and final version of everything that was agreed upon by the parties up until the time of sale?

3) did the discussion/negotiation/whatever that a party is trying to bring in take place before or after the execution of the written contract?

4) does the term actually conflict with the contract on its face?  Or does it either interpret Ana bigots term or supplement it?

The exact implications of each vary between UCC and non-UCC contracts. But generally, as to the first three, the parole evidence rule ONLY excludes negotiations/agreements/etc. that took place BEFORE the contract was signed, if the contract was fully integrated (which is often the toughest part unless it’s explicit) and when the issue is about the term of the contract.  You can ALWAYS use parol evidence to challenge the formation or validity of a contract. And anything that took place AFTER the contract was signed is a modification, not parol evidence.

It’s a complicated technical rule, but it fundamentally makes sense.  If you and I are talking about a complex deal and I say “it would be nice if you could deliver the boat at 3 p.m. on Saturday” and you say “that should work.”  We sign a contract and you agree to deliver the boat “this weekend” and wind up delivering it at 9a.m. On Saturday what happens?  I am likely to say “but I said I wanted it at 3 and you agreed.”  You’re likely to say “that wasn’t really an agreement. And he signed the contract just saying “this weekend.”” 

If the contract literally just says “driver agrees to deliver a boat to customer this weekend for $300” a court will likely say that wasn’t integrated and obviously the customer thought the terms they discussed would be honored.

If the contract is twelve pages of detailed instructions as to what route you will drive, the serial number of the boat, the type of trailer you will use, how the boat will be secured, etc. and says “this document is a full and complete integration of the agreements entered into by the parties” the court is likely to say “you signed a very detail and thorough agreement with a lot of specific terms. If the exact delivery time was so important to you, it should have been included in that document.”

Expensive_Change_443

If you do well you get out on Parol early

Main_Budget_3613

Alright, imagine you and your friend make a pinky promise that you'll trade your toy car for their toy dinosaur. You shake on it and even draw a picture of the trade to make it "official."

Now, the next day, your friend says, "Wait! You also promised to give me a bag of candy with the car!" But that’s not written in the picture contract.

Parol evidence is like a rule that says:  
"If we wrote down our deal, we have to stick to what's written, and we can’t bring up secret promises that weren’t included in the final paper."

So, unless there's a special reason (like a mistake or trickery), the court won’t let your friend say, "But he also promised candy!" because it wasn’t written in the agreement.

I hope that makes sense!

Then-Welcome-1600

PE is things discussed prior to the writing! 

Let’s say we agree over the phone you will paint my house “aquamarine blue.” Then when we write the contract, it just says “blue”. Then you paint it “blue” and when I see it’s the wrong blue I don’t want to pay. In court I will try to introduce the phone call as PE (because it came b4 the writing) to prove we agreed to “aquamarine blue”.  

Another example. Let’s say Im your boss and I come up to you and say “hey I need you to take on this extra assignment and as consideration Ill throw in season tickets to the Los Angeles Lakers.” You orally agree. But when I write the contract it just says “Los Angeles season tickets.” Now once you do the work I give you tickets to the Los Angeles Sparks (women’s bball). We go to court and I say well the contract doesn’t specify a team. You will want to bring in PE (the oral agreement) to show we agreed to Lakers tix.

DelAmoBaby

I am a practicing lawyer a bit removed from law school, but the basic understanding is: if there is a written agreement, a court enforces it plain and unambiguous terms. A party can’t come in and say “actually this is what was meant or agreed to”.

For example, let’s say we have a written contract: I will sell you my 1995 Honda accord for $500. You: I agree”. As part of negotiations, we discussed if I would replace the transmission before delivering it to you, and let’s say you understood that I made that promise. However, it was not in our written agreement which you signed. I never fixed the transmission, took your money, and gave you the car. 

If a dispute arose, the parol evidence rule would bar you from introducing evidence of our discussion or alleged agreement I would replace the transmission. In a contract case, the court is limited to enforcing the plain and unambiguous terms with the 4 corners of a written document.

In reality, you could try to sue for fraud or negligent misrepresentation, which are not breach of contract claims but torts. Still, the parol evidence rule is a hurdle.

AntGood1704

I can’t lie on my exam last semester there was a parol evidence issue and I just bs’d my way through it and got the points. Suffice to say uhhh good luck and try and you may accidentally hit like I did LMAO

Juryokuu

wait til you see the rule against perpuities

slavicacademia

[deleted]

Parol evidence is simple. Law school profs make it incredibly confusing.

There’s latent and patent ambiguities, though some states don’t have this distinction. But its helpful to understand. A patent ambiguity is one that is obvious in the text of the contract. A latent one isnt obvious. For instance, a contract says a painter is going to paint the yellow house on the street. There’s two yellow houses on the street, though. So you can have evidence admitted to clarify which one. It doesn’t alter the contract’s terms; it clarifies it. That’s basically it.

RegularJohn263

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/law) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Cloaked42m

I agree it needs more lower court time.


Personally I don't see how a ban on semi-auto rifles is at all constitutional with the myriad of 2A rulings we have had so far as precedent.


A sawed off for instance is banned because it holds no military or militia standard issue use. This was ruled by SCOTUS.


A semi-auto rifle is in common use, widely owned, has militia standard issue use, and is the firearm type with least homcides/number owned.


Even from a moral standpoint all rifle types combined only account for roughly 4.5% of firearm homicides on their worse years in the last 25 years, (3% in 2023, the last year data is fully available).


During covud their was a spike of roughly 5,000 more firearm homicides and in that same time semi-auto rifles homicides declined over previous years.

doublethink_1984

This is strange to me.


Bolt action, lever action, semi auto, semi auto with detachable mag, and authomatic rifles combined only make up 3% of homicides.


Even accepting the most fantastical and mythological claim every homcide by rifle is by assault weapons, that every current one would never be used again, and that no other arm or means would be used to commit the homicide instead this if a ban occured nationwide would still leave 97% of the homcide problem.


Even proposing something that in the most wild dreams would only accomplish 3% of solving a problem is laughable. In reality even by special order of Obama to do a further analysis of the federal 10 year ban on sale there was NO data tp support the claim that the ban resulted in any reduction in homcides.

This is my understanding and could be slightly off, but when a contract is written out (completely) you can’t introduce evidence that a prior oral agreement existed that fundamentally changes something in the written contract. Essentially it’s just a rule that makes the written agreement binding regardless of what was spoken of before both parties signed. That is my dumbed down understanding so pls don’t kill me on here if it’s wrong lol

Silent_You201

used in interpretation and formation of a contract. outside evidence can’t be used in contract disputes unless you’re looking to solve questions of ambiguity or disputes over formation/modification/meaning (duress, fraud, mistakes, illegality, etc). you don’t need to know the rule as much as you just need to know it’s exceptions. it’s tested a little less but easy to spot

swagfly92

I would just add here that the critical effect of parol evidence is whether the jury is permitted to hear something. Under Williston’s “four corners” approach, there’s a strong presumption of full integration—especially with the presence of a merger clause—meaning parol evidence is less likely to be allowed for presentation to a jury based on the parties intention that the contract include all the terms.

A Corbin “all evidence”/contextual approach won’t assume full integration like Williston does. A merger clause might evidence an intention to that end, but the question doesn’t stop there. The contextual approach invites analysis of the text AND everything else, based on credibility. If parol evidence isn’t credible, the judge simply doesn’t have to allow a jury to hear it.

Let me know if this helps!

eurekareelblast22

Literally zero Harvard grads or students here.  So strange.  Why obsess about a place you don't know?  Just go through your days interacting with your direct surroundings with integrity and take care of yourself while being kind to others.

Greendale7HumanBeing

Creative_Hope_4690

Allowing people with merit to attend schools they worked hard to get into. Seems right.

Skin_Floutist

HumbleLeave5814

People that read this and get upset are racist

Decent_Visual_4845

Vyell_Vyvyan-Vivek

If the children of the elite establishment cannot get in to Harvard then its fortunes and reputation will start to be in decline. Harvard was always more about prestige than anything else. Lots of other places to get comparable or even better educations.

nic_haflinger

Positive-Entrance792

Based-Ace-Alt

GuestOk583

ParksNet30

The Supreme Court of India is set to hear arguments regarding the review petitions filed against its previous verdict on the Enforcement Directorate's powers.

Supreme Court Review of PMLA Verdict

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want