Written by The ‘parol evidence’ rule typically excludes all extrinsic evidence when determining legal terminology in a contract. The case of Quilkey & Anor v Tractile Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] QDC 204 (Quilkey & Anor v Tractile) essentially abandoned the parol evidence rule and relied on extrinsic evidence supplied in the advertising material, website and emails to establish the parties obligations within the contract.
Facts of the case
Quilkey entered a contract with Tractile whereby Tractile were to supply and install a solar roofing system on Quilkey’s property. The system was designed to collect drinking water and provide solar power. Quilkey claimed a breach of contract as Tractile had not provided a roof enabling the previously mentioned obligations. Judgement was given for Quilkey as it was found that the contract was too ambiguous, and the website and other advertising materials instead provided evidence as to Tractiles contractual obligations. The Court relied on advertisements on Tractiles’ website to determine contractual obligations.