Bad Credit Repair Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Black's Law Dictionary - parol contract

cuthatcard · 12-31-2007, 01:12 AM

parol contract 1. A contract or modification of a contract that is not in writing or is only partially in writing. - Also termed oral contract; parol agreement; (loosley) verbal contract. 2. At common law, a contract not under seal, although it could be in writing. --Also termed informal contract; simple contract. See PAROL EVIDENCE RULE.

This is from Black's. My question is about a Bank issued credit card as it applies to SOL. If the definition of parol (oral) is as stated above, why would there not be a good argument for this vs. written contract? This definition states "not in writing or is partially in writing"? "a contract not under seal, although it could be in writing" -

What about this (oral contract-5yr SOL) vs. a written contract statute (15 yrs).

Any arguments either way? Any comment? Why wouldn't it apply even with "some" documentation from the CA?

12-31-2007, 01:12 AM	#1 (permalink)
cuthatcard Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Maybe on the MIss., the Tenn., the Red River, the Ohio, the Cumberland or somewhere in-be-twix Posts: 49 Casino Cash: $333550	Black's Law Dictionary - parol contract - Credit Card? parol contract 1. A contract or modification of a contract that is not in writing or is only partially in writing. - Also termed oral contract; parol agreement; (loosley) verbal contract. 2. At common law, a contract not under seal, although it could be in writing. --Also termed informal contract; simple contract. See PAROL EVIDENCE RULE. This is from Black's. My question is about a Bank issued credit card as it applies to SOL. If the definition of parol (oral) is as stated above, why would there not be a good argument for this vs. written contract? This definition states "not in writing or is partially in writing"? "a contract not under seal, although it could be in writing" - What about this (oral contract-5yr SOL) vs. a written contract statute (15 yrs). Any arguments either way? Any comment? Why wouldn't it apply even with "some" documentation from the CA?