The purpose of the parol evidence rule is to limit the evidence that can be presented in court regarding an agreement. This rule generally prohibits the introduction of evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements, negotiations, or conversations that contradict the terms of a written agreement that has been signed by both parties.

Therefore, the statement “the purpose of the parol evidence rule is to allow oral evidence to prove agreements” is false. In fact, the parol evidence rule is intended to prevent parties from introducing extraneous evidence into a contract to change its written terms. This means that any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements that were not included in the final written agreement cannot be used to modify or contradict the terms that were agreed upon.

The rationale behind the parol evidence rule is to promote certainty and reliability in contract law. By limiting the evidence that can be presented in court, it helps parties to rely on the terms of the written contract, rather than ambiguous or unclear verbal agreements that may have been made outside of it. This can prevent confusion, disputes, and potential litigation that can arise from conflicting interpretations of the agreement.

In conclusion, the parol evidence rule does not allow oral evidence to prove agreements. Instead, it restricts the evidence that can be presented in court regarding an agreement to the written terms of the contract. As a professional, it is important to ensure that any content created on this topic accurately reflects the purpose and function of the parol evidence rule.