Pym v Campbell, 6 Ellis & Blackburn 370 (Q.B. 1856)
- Court: Queen’s Bench (England)
- Legal Focus: Formation of a Binding Agreement; Parol Evidence Rule; Use of Oral Evidence
What took place in this matter?
In this historic case, Pym invented a “crushing, washing, and amalgamating machine.” Campbell agreed in writing to purchase and pay £800 for three-eighths of the benefits of the invention. The agreement, however, was conditional on the inspection and approval of the invention by two engineers.
Only one engineer agreed, while the other did not. Pym filed a lawsuit, claiming that the signed document formed a legally enforceable contract. The court disagreed, ruling that the writing was not the final contract but rather a memorandum, needing clearance by the engineers. There was no legally enforceable contract because the condition was not met.
Parol Evidence Rule and the Case of Pym v Campbell
This case is cited across English common law and many jurisdictions as a foundational exception to the parol evidence rule.
The word parol comes from the Anglo-Norman term meaning “spoken” (cf. the French verb parler). The “parol evidence rule” states that one cannot use prior oral statements or external evidence to contradict the terms of a written contract, under the assumption that the written document reflects the final and complete agreement between the parties.
Pym v Campbell is a leading authority illustrating the limitation of parol evidence rule. It shows that the rule does not apply if it can be shown that the document is merely a draft or that the agreement was conditional upon the fulfillment of certain requirements.
That is, if the parties orally agreed the contract’s effectiveness depended on a future event, then that oral evidence can be admitted to show that a written agreement was never intended to be operative on its face.
List of references:
- https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~dwharder/epel/Lecture_materials/Parol_evidence.pdf
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/50994-sample.pdf?v=1715491509
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:
- West v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1986): Unjust Contracts Explained
- Coastal Estates Pty Ltd v Melevende [1965]: Contract Rescission
- Teacher v Calder: The Validity of Audits in Business Contracts
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.