Parol Evidence Rule

A landowner and a landscape architect signed a detailed writing in which the landscape architect agreed to landscape and replant the landowner's residential property in accordance with a design prepared by the architect and incorporated in the writing. The landowner agreed to pay $10,000 for the work upon its completion. The landowner's spouse was not a party to the agreement and had no ownership interest in the premises.

Shortly before the agreement was signed, the landowner and the architect orally agreed that the writing would not become binding on either party unless the landowner's spouse approves the landscaping design.

The landowner's spouse did not like the design, and refused to approve it, so the landowner refused to allow the architect to proceed with the work. The architect sued the landowner for breach of contract.

At trial, the landowner would like to testify about the oral agreement. The architect objects on the basis of the Parol Evidence Rule. The judge rules in favor of the landowner and allows his testimony.

• Was the judge's ruling correct or incorrect? Discuss using an IRAC format