LAW OF EVIDENCE 623
§ Exceptions which permit oral Evidence to be given to modify the terms of the document.
They are contained in Sec. 92 and cover the following cases.
The first thing to note is that such evidence can always be given by persons who were not parties to the document or who are not representatives in interest of the parties to the document.
The cases in which parties to the document or their representatives in interest can give oral Evidence are as follows:—
(i) Fact which would invalidate a document e.g. fraud, want of capacity.
(ii) Fact on which document is silent and which is not inconsistent with its terms.
(iii) Condition precedent.
(iv) Subsequent oral agreement.
(v) Usage or custom by which incidents are attached to contracts. (Bakers dozen). Provided it is not inconsistent.
(vi) Fact showing how the language is related to existing facts.
§ Cases where oral Evidence may be admitted to Explain documentary Evidence.
There are two propositions of law which arise out of the first rule of Best Evidence relating to Documentary Evidence.
Where the transaction embodied in a document is of a non-dispositive character or is one not required by law to be in writing the fact of the transaction may be proved by oral Evidence.
Where it is dispositive or required by Law to be in writing then oral evidence not only given to prove the transaction but it cannot be given to contradict, modify or amend the terms of the transaction as embodied in the document.
One question however ramains. Can oral Evidence be given to explain documentary Evidence ? This is a distinct question and must be, separated from the question whether evidence can be given to modify contract etc. the terms of the documentary evidence.