Jenn asked already asked a question on 212, but I'm confused by a slightly different issue.

Since 214 (c) allows the admission of evidence of earlier or contemporaneous agreements or negotiations to determine the meaning of a writing (integrated or not), I'm unclear how this jibes with the admission of extrinsic evidence to interpret integrated agreements in 212 (2). Is the distinction that the "extrinsic evidence" allowed by 212 (2) is more broadly defined than the evidence of prior agreements and negotiations of 214?

A second question that presents itself on the same two sections is whether the evidence allowed in Sect. 214 is heard by the trier of fact or law? If heard by the trier of fact, doesn't this seemingly contradict 212 (2)'s attempt to limit the evidence heard by the trier of fact to specific instances? What purpose does this limitation serve if the trier of fact has already heard a great deal of extrinsic evidence about the meaning of the contract pursuant to 214 (c)?

Sorry if these questions are muddled or confused, but I suppose that accurately reflects my understanding right now.

Nathan

-- Anonymous, November 17, 1998