Irrelevant Fact
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Contracts1
Example wrong choices
22419_parol-evidence-christian-antiquities · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the conversation occurred before the written contract was signed, so it is not barred by the parol evidence rule.
Why it's attractive
The choice correctly identifies the conversation was prior to signing, but draws the exact wrong legal conclusion from that fact
Why it's wrong
The choice correctly identifies the conversation was prior to signing, but draws the exact wrong legal conclusion from that fact
22419_parol-evidence-christian-antiquities · CONTRACTS · Choice BNo, because any ambiguity in the contract should be construed against the dealer as the party who drafted it.
Why it's attractive
The choice names a real legal doctrine that doesn't answer the call — admissibility, not interpretation
Why it's wrong
The choice names a real legal doctrine that doesn't answer the call — admissibility, not interpretation
22419_parol-evidence-christian-antiquities · CONTRACTS · Choice DYes, because there were no other witnesses to the alleged oral agreement.
Why it's attractive
The number of witnesses doesn't connect to any element of the parol evidence rule
Why it's wrong
The number of witnesses doesn't connect to any element of the parol evidence rule
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →