Final answer:
The parol evidence rule excludes the use of prior or contemporaneous external agreements to alter a written contract. However, evidence of a condition precedent is outside its scope and may be admissible in court. This exception allows for the understanding of terms that must be met for the contract to be in effect.
Step-by-step explanation:
The parol evidence rule is a principle in contract law that prohibits the introduction of evidence of prior or contemporaneous negotiations and agreements that contradict, modify, or vary the contractual terms of a written contract when that contract is intended to be a complete and final expression of the parties' agreement. However, there are exceptions to this rule where external (parol) evidence may be admitted. The options given are:
- A Evidence of a condition precedent: This is typically outside the scope of the parol evidence rule because it establishes the circumstances under which the contract becomes effective.
- B Evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement: This is generally covered by the parol evidence rule and is not admissible to alter the written contract.
- C Evidence of a prior oral agreement: Like contemporaneous oral agreements, prior oral agreements are usually not admissible if they conflict with the written contract.
- D Evidence of a condition subsequent: This is also typically covered by the parol evidence rule and not admissible if it varies the terms of the written contract.
Therefore, among the options given, Evidence of a condition precedent (A) is typically outside the scope of the parol evidence rule and may be admitted in court to prove that a condition must be fulfilled before the contract becomes binding.