Question

Principle: Terms of any written contract can be proved by producing the written contract only and oral evidence is excluded.
Facts: A gives B receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered to prove payment.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

• A. Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed
• B. Oral evidence to prove payment is not allowed
• C. Oral evidence is always allowed to prove all facts
• D. Oral evidence is generally disallowed

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct option is (A):Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed .

Answer 2

The principle says the terms of a written contract can only be proved by producing the written contract itself, and oral evidence of those terms is excluded. A gave B a receipt after B paid him money, and oral evidence was later offered to prove that the payment had actually been made.

1. Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed: A receipt is an acknowledgment of a fact that already happened, it is not itself the contract whose terms are in dispute. The principle excludes oral evidence of a written contract's terms, but proving the underlying fact of payment is a separate matter that oral evidence can still establish.
2. Oral evidence to prove payment is not allowed: This treats the receipt as though it were the written contract whose terms cannot be varied or proved otherwise, but the principle is aimed at contractual terms, not at a simple written acknowledgment of a payment that has already been made.
3. Oral evidence is always allowed to prove all facts: This goes too far in the other direction and would swallow up the exclusion the principle creates for the actual terms of a written contract, which is not what happened here since the exclusion applies to a narrower category than all facts generally.
4. Oral evidence is generally disallowed: This states a blanket rule that is broader than what the principle actually says, the principle targets the terms of written contracts specifically, not oral evidence of facts in general such as whether a payment occurred.

Since the receipt is only a record of the fact that payment was made rather than the contract itself, oral evidence remains available to prove that underlying fact, and the exclusion in the principle does not reach that far.

Therefore, the correct answer is Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed.

Answer 3

The fact that decides this question is what kind of document a receipt actually is, an acknowledgment that a payment already happened, not a contract laying out ongoing terms. The principle excludes oral evidence only of a written contract's terms, so each option should be tested against that distinction.

1. Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed: A receipt records a fact that already occurred, it is not the contract whose terms are in question, so proving that underlying fact of payment remains open to oral evidence even though the exclusion applies to contractual terms.
2. Oral evidence to prove payment is not allowed: This treats the receipt as though it were the written contract itself, whose terms cannot be varied by oral evidence, but the principle is aimed at contractual terms, not a simple acknowledgment of a completed payment.
3. Oral evidence is always allowed to prove all facts: This goes too far in the other direction, ignoring that the principle does exclude oral evidence for the narrower category of contractual terms.
4. Oral evidence is generally disallowed: This also goes too far, stating a blanket rule broader than what the principle actually targets, which is specifically the terms of written contracts.

Testing each option against the distinction between a contract's terms and a mere acknowledgment of payment leaves only the option that keeps oral evidence of payment open.

Therefore, the correct answer is Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed.