Parol evidence rule raised to bar extrinsic evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations

DEFENSE · 18usc1962:x-parol-evidence-rule

Rejected as a bar to mail/wire fraud RICO predicates sounding in tort rather than contract enforcement.

Exact element source

It shall be unlawful for any person

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [33:68] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
state-evidence-rule/does-not-bar-fraud-based-rico-claim		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — not

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
Case	Element	Holding and scope	Variant	Exact source quotations
/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013	Parol evidence rule raised to bar extrinsic evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations	not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (c),(d) Rests on a month-old change in California law (Riverisland overruling Pendergrass); court does not decide whether a state parol evidence rule could ever limit a federal RICO claim.	state-evidence-rule/does-not-bar-fraud-based-rico-claim	Generally, the parol evidence rule does not act to bar extrinsic evidence related to a fraud claim rather than a breach of contract claim. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01`; Unicode character offsets [41428:41566] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee`. Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) Because plaintiffs bring RICO claims grounded in fraud — not claims for breach of contract — evidence related to their claims is plainly not barred by the parol evidence rule. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01`; Unicode character offsets [42849:43024] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

Generally, the parol evidence rule does not act to bar extrinsic evidence related to a fraud claim rather than a breach of contract claim.

/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013

Generally, the parol evidence rule does not act to bar extrinsic evidence related to a fraud claim rather than a breach of contract claim.

Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [41428:41566] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.

Rejected as a bar to mail/wire fraud RICO predicates sounding in tort rather than contract enforcement.