Contract; contents; terms; proving orally agreed terms of partly written and partly oral contracts.
Facts: Immediately before agreeing to buy van den Esschert's house, Chappell asked if it was free from infestation by white ants. Van den Esschert said it was, but this assurance was not included in the written contract of sale that Chappell then signed. Chappell sued van den Esschert for breach of contract when the house turned out to be infested with white ants.
Issue: Was Chappell entitled to lead evidence of a term, orally agreed, that the house was free of white ants?
Decision: The court was of the view that, taking all the circumstances into account, the contract was partly written and partly oral. In such circumstances the parol evidence rule does not exclude evidence of additional orally agreed terms.
Reason: Wolff CJ said (at 116):
"I would think that on the purchase of a house in this country an inquiry regarding the presence of white ants was most important: when (as in this case) the prospective purchaser immediately before signing the contract makes a specific request to be informed about that matter and gets an affirmative answer such as the purchaser got in this case, it was intended to be made a part and parcel of the contract and was to be regarded as a term."
Chappell was therefore entitled to lead evidence to prove the existence of the oral term in addition to the terms contained in the written portion of the contract.