CACI No. 304. Oral or Written Contract Terms

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2024 edition)

Download PDF

304.Oral or Written Contract Terms

[Contracts may be written or oral.]

[Contracts may be partly written and partly oral.]

Oral contracts are just as valid as written contracts.

New September 2003; Revised December 2013

Directions for Use

Give the bracketed alternative that is most applicable to the facts of the case.

If the written agreement is fully integrated, the second option may not be

appropriate. Parol evidence is inadmissible if the judge finds that the written

agreement is fully integrated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1856(d).) The parol evidence rule

generally prohibits the introduction of extrinsic evidence - oral or written - to vary

or contradict the terms of an integrated written instrument. (EPA Real Estate

Partnership v. Kang (1992) 12 Cal.App.4th 171, 175 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 209]; see Civ.

Code, § 1625; Code Civ. Proc., § 1856(a).)

There are, however, exceptions to the parol evidence rule. (See, e.g., Riverisland

Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn. (2013) 55 Cal.4th

1169, 1174−1175 [151 Cal.Rptr.3d 93, 291 P.3d 316] [fraud exception]; see also

Code Civ. Proc., § 1856.) If an exception has been found as a matter of law, the

second option may be given. If there are questions of fact regarding the applicability

of an exception, additional instructions on the exception will be necessary.

Sources and Authority

• Oral Contracts. Civil Code section 1622.

• Statute of Frauds. Civil Code section 1624.

• “This question posed by defendant [may a contract be partly written and partly

oral] must be answered in the affirmative in this sense: that a contract or

agreement in legal contemplation is neither written nor oral, but oral or written

evidence may be received to establish the terms of the contract or agreement

between the parties. . . . A so-called partly written and partly oral contract is in

legal effect a contract, the terms of which may be proven by both written and

oral evidence.” (Lande v. Southern California Freight Lines (1948) 85

Cal.App.2d 416, 420-421 [193 P.2d 144].)

• “When the parties to a written contract have agreed to it as an ‘integration’ - a

complete and final embodiment of the terms of an agreement - parol evidence

cannot be used to add to or vary its terms . . . [However,] ‘[w]hen only part of

the agreement is integrated, the same rule applies to that part, but parol evidence

may be used to prove elements of the agreement not reduced to writing.’ ”

(Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal.2d 222, 225 [65 Cal.Rptr. 545, 436 P.2d 561].)

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Contracts § 117

Wegner et al., California Practice Guide: Civil Trials & Evidence, Ch. 8E-G, Parol

Evidence Rule, ¶ 8:3145 (The Rutter Group)

13 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 140, Contracts, § 140.83

(Matthew Bender)

27 California Legal Forms Transaction Guide, Ch. 75, Formation of Contracts and

Standard Contractual Provisions, § 75.12 (Matthew Bender)

1 Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Contract Litigation, Ch. 13, Attacking

or Defending Existence of Contract - Absence of Essential Element, 13.03-13.17

CONTRACTS CACI No. 304

Page last reviewed May 2024

Today on Verdict

The Chief Justice Roberts Who Stood Up Last Term Was More Interested in Advancing a Conservative Legal Agenda than Promoting Judicial Statesmanship: Part Two

In this second of a two-part series of columns, Professor Citron argues that Roberts re-established his control over the Court by successfully weakening the administrative state and expanding presidential immunity while simultaneously avoiding controversial decisions on gun rights and reproductive issues, ultimately demonstrating his ability to push a conservative agenda without incurring significant political backlash.