Oral discussion prior to the development of a written contract cannot be used to extend the terms of the final document due to which principle?

The principle that oral discussions made prior to the creation of a written contract cannot be used to alter or extend the terms of the final written document is known as the Parol Evidence Rule. This legal doctrine is designed to uphold the integrity of written agreements by preventing the introduction of oral or extrinsic evidence that contradicts or adds to the terms of a fully executed written contract.

The rationale behind the Parol Evidence Rule is to provide certainty and predictability in contracts. Once parties have documented their agreement in writing, the expectation is that this document captures all aspects of their agreement. Allowing prior oral discussions to modify the written contract could lead to confusion and disputes over the parties' true intentions.

This rule is critical in contractual relationships, as it encourages parties to thoroughly review and finalize all terms before signing to avoid any ambiguity that oral discussions might introduce later. In contrast, the other principles listed, such as the Statute of Frauds, which requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable, the Principle of Subrogation, which deals with the right of an insurer to pursue a third party after making a payment, and the Principle of Utmost Good Faith, which pertains to the obligation of honesty in insurance contracts, do not specifically address the issue