GOVT 404
Page 1 of 2
LEGAL MEMORANDUM TEMPLATE
MEMORANDUM
TO: [You will identify the person the memo is addressed to here. For this course, you can
write your memo to your instructor.]
FROM: [Your name appears here.]
RE: [You should indicate what the memorandum is about, summarized in a few words here.
For example, for the Module 5: Week 5 assignment you might type: “Module 5: Week 5
Assignment: Unconscionability”]
DATE: [The exact date that you submit the memorandum should appear here.]
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
[Here you will describe the question(s) presented. If there is more than one issue, you can
number each of the questions. For purposes of the assignments in GOVT 404, each question
presented can correspond to each of the subparts of the assignment. For example, for the
Module 5: Week 5 assignment, the first question presented can be written as follows:
1. What is the unconscionability doctrine, and how do courts apply it?]
SHORT ANSWER
[Here you will briefly answer the question(s) presented. Answer each one in one sentence
if you can, because you will provide a more comprehensive answer in the discussion section of
your memo. If there is more than one question to address, you can number each short answer to
correspond to the number of the question presented. For example, you might begin to draft a
short answer to the first question as follows:
1. Unconscionability is a legal doctrine raised as a defense to the enforcement of
contracts, and a party raising the defense of unconscionability must establish….]
FACTS
[Your statement of facts will summarize the legally significant facts of the case or
hypothetical. A good statement of facts does not include all of the facts, but instead carefully
describes only those facts that are essential to understanding the legal issue or that provide
essential context to understanding other facts.]
GOVT 404
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
[The discussion section is the heart of your legal analysis and is typically the largest part
of your legal memo. Organize your discussion into subheadings that correspond to the issues in
the question presented, and provide carefully organized paragraphs that support your
conclusions on each issue. Your discussion of each issue should begin with the legal rules
necessary to understand the issue and reach a conclusion. Next, you should discuss the legally
significant facts and how they relate to the legal rule. Last, your discussion of each issue should
reach a conclusion—one carefully justified by the application of facts to the relevant legal rules.
Once you have crafted a carefully written, well-organized, logically sound, well-justified
discussion for the first issue, repeat the process under a new subheading for the next issue, until
you have addressed all of the issues.]
CONCLUSION
[Your memo ends with a conclusion, summarizing your answer to the questions
presented.]
GOVT 404
JUDICIAL OPINION EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
One of the doctrines you have studied in this Module: Week, is the Parol Evidence Rule. This
assignment will give you an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of this legal doctrine
and evaluate how a judges use the Parol Evidence Rule to decide legal disputes. You will read a
judicial decision that includes both the court’s opinion and a dissenting judge’s opinion. This
assignment will also provide an opportunity for you to analyze and write within the conventions
of the legal profession, by organizing your analysis in the form of a standard legal memo. A
Legal Memorandum Template has been provided to you in the Judicial Opinion Evaluation
Resources section within the Judicial Opinion Evaluation Assignment page.
INSTRUCTIONS
Address the following issues as they relate to these 2 important doctrines in contract law:
Prepare a legal memo that is 2–3 single-spaced pages. You must include at least 2
references from the course textbook, case law, or other legal authority sources in
Bluebook format.
Explain what the Parol Evidence Rule is, and what policies are supported by the Parol
Evidence Rule.
How did Justice Markman apply the Parol Evidence Rule to justify his decision in the
case of UAW-GM Hum. Res. Ctr. v. KSL Recreation Corp., 228 Mich. App. 486, 510,
579 N.W.2d 411, 422 (1998)? How would Justice Holbrook, writing the dissenting
opinion, have applied the rule differently?
Do you think Justice Markman or Judge Holbrook has a more well-reasoned decision?
Fully justify your answer. Which Justice’s opinion applies the law in a way that better
ensures the sanctity and integriety of promise-making and promise-keeping? Fully
justify your answer.
Write your paper in the form of a legal office memo, using the provided template. Ensure
your memo is well organized and logical. Write for clarity, develop your position fully,
and use the legal terminology you encounter correctly. Proofread carefully before
submitting your final product.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Legal Memorandum Template MEMORANDUM TO: Instructors Name FROM: Student’s
Name RE: Parol Evidence Rule DATE: Date QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Explain what the
Parol Evidence Rule is and what policies are supported by the Parol Evidence Rule. How did
Justice Markman apply the Parol Evidence Rule to justify his decision in the case of UAW-GM
Hum. Res. Ctr. v. KSL Recreation Corp., 228 Mich. App. 486, 510, 579 N.W.2d 411, 422
(1998)? How would Justice Holbrook, who wrote the dissenting opinion, have applied the rule
differently? Do you think Justice Markman or Judge Holbrook has a more well-reasoned
decision? Fully justify your answer. Which justice’s opinion applies the law in a way that better
ensures the sanctity and integrity of promise-making and promise-keeping? Fully justify your
answer. SHORT ANSWER Parol evidence refers to any agreement that is not written or found
within a documented contract. Under the Parol Evidence Rule, any evidence found outside the
contract is inadmissible in a court of law unless there is enough evidence of a common mistake,
duress, or fraud. The rule helps prevent untruthful or unethical attacks on contracts. Justice
Markman applied parol evidence by holding that the contemporaneous negotiations or
agreements were admissible on the grounds that a written contract was used as a complete
expression of the agreement between the two parties. Justice Holbrook would hold that the parol
evidence was sufficient in that the parties involved in the merger ought to have understood the
existing contract. Justice Holbrook would have granted the plaintiff the case on the grounds of
breaching contracts through the merger. I think Justice Markman made a better-reasoned
decision than Justice Holbrook. The argument by Justice Markman applies the law and ensures
the sanctity and integrity of promise-making and promise-keeping because it takes into
consideration the initial contract agreement and disregards new agreements. FACTS Parol
evidence was applied by Justice Markman in this case in that there was a separate agreement
indicating that the employees of the hotel, at the time of the convention, would have unionized
was not admissible because the contract letter did not include an express merger clause. On the
basis of fraud, there was no fraud that would invalidate the merger clause itself or that would
invalidate the entire contract. Justice Markman held that parol evidence was not admissible to
show a lack of merger. DISCUSSION The extrinsic agreement arrived at in the process of
merger was distinct and independent from the existing agreement. This makes it invalid in regard
to the original contract agreements. Secondly, the extrinsic agreement did not contradict the
implied provisions of the originally written contract. Finally, the extrinsic agreement was not in
the form that the parties would ordinarily be expected to accommodate in writing. Thus, the
evidence was not sufficient in the eyes of Justice Markman. CONCLUSION Parol evidence can
be considered in court when the evidence is duress or fraud to one party on the basis of the initial
agreement. Justice Markman gave the best judgment and considered all the facts presented in the
case.
