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.

• 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

Hint:

In contract law, oral evidence cannot alter or contradict the written contract unless there is an exception like fraud or mistake. Always ensure that written documents are clear and detailed.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The principle provided in the question is referring to the "written contract rule" in contract law, which states that the terms of any contract can only be proved by presenting the written contract itself. Oral evidence is not admissible to alter or contradict the terms of the written contract. The written contract serves as the primary evidence of the agreement's terms. If B wants to prove payment, they must rely on the written receipt provided by A, and oral evidence cannot be used to dispute or support the facts of the payment unless there's an exception like fraud or duress.
Thus, the correct answer is (B).
Option (A) is incorrect because oral evidence is excluded in this case as per the written contract rule. Option (C) is incorrect because oral evidence is not always allowed, especially when the written contract is involved. Option (D) is incorrect because while oral evidence is generally excluded, it is not absolutely disallowed in all cases—there are exceptions for certain circumstances.

Answer 2

The rule given says that once parties reduce a transaction to writing, the terms of that writing can only be proved by producing the writing itself, and oral evidence to prove the same terms is shut out. Here, A gave B a written receipt for money paid, and someone now wants to prove that payment with oral evidence instead of the receipt.

1. Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed: This would let a party bypass the receipt entirely and prove payment purely through spoken testimony. That runs against the rule, which requires the written document itself to prove its own terms, so this option is incorrect.
2. Oral evidence to prove payment is not allowed: Since A already issued a written receipt recording the payment, that receipt is the primary proof of the transaction. The rule bars oral evidence from being used in place of, or to prove the same facts as, the written document. This is exactly what the principle requires.
3. Oral evidence is always allowed to prove all facts: This is far too broad. The rule specifically carves out an exception for facts already reduced to writing, so oral evidence is not always allowed, particularly not here.
4. Oral evidence is generally disallowed: This states a vague general rule rather than applying the principle to the specific facts. The question is not asking about oral evidence in general; it is asking about proving the terms of this particular written receipt, which the rule addresses directly and completely.

The receipt is a written record of the payment, so its contents must be proved by the receipt itself. Oral evidence cannot substitute for it.

Therefore, the correct answer is Oral evidence to prove payment is not allowed.

Answer 3

The rule given establishes a hierarchy between two kinds of proof: once a transaction is captured in a document, the document becomes the primary evidence of its own terms, and oral testimony is treated as an inferior, excluded substitute for it, not an alternative path to the same conclusion. Testing each option against this idea of a hierarchy, where the writing always outranks oral testimony for its own contents, tells us which one is correct.

1. Oral evidence to prove payment is allowed: This treats oral testimony as if it stood on equal footing with the receipt, letting either one prove the payment. That flattens the hierarchy the rule sets up, where the writing alone occupies the top tier for proving its own terms.
2. Oral evidence to prove payment is not allowed: This respects the hierarchy correctly, the receipt sits above oral testimony as proof of the payment it records, so testimony offered in its place, or in addition to prove the same fact, is excluded.
3. Oral evidence is always allowed to prove all facts: This denies that any hierarchy exists at all, treating oral evidence as universally sufficient. The rule specifically creates an exception once a fact has been reduced to writing, so this sweeping claim cannot be right.
4. Oral evidence is generally disallowed: This gestures at a hierarchy but states it too vaguely, as a general policy rather than the specific outcome for this receipt. The question calls for applying the rule to this particular written document, not restating a broad tendency.

Because the receipt sits at the top of the hierarchy the rule creates for proving the terms of a written transaction, oral testimony cannot be used in its place to prove the payment.

Therefore, the correct answer is Oral evidence to prove payment is not allowed.