How Did The Odessa Steps Sequence Influence The Theory Of...

Kal Bur How did The Odessa Steps sequence influence the theory of montage in film? The Battleship Potemkin, is a soviet film directed by Sergei Eisenstein in 1925. Sergei Eisenstein was a brief student at The Kuleshov Workshop, which was a class run by Soviet filmmaker, Lev Kuleshov at the Moscow Film School. The school was established in 1919, and is the world’s first film school. The Kuleshov Workshop explored the effects of juxtaposition in film, and how sequential shots convey a specific meaning. Kuleshov and his students analyzed many films for research, and one of them in particular was the most influential film in Russia during 1916, Intolerance directed by D. W. Griffith. A whole year later in 1920, the Kuleshov effect was found, and its theory was to identify how the order of images can change an audience’s perception. ‘Kuleshov discovered that depending on how shots are assembled the audience will attach a specific meaning or emotion to it’ (The Kuleshov Experiment http://www.elementsofcinema.com/editing/kuleshov-effect, 2016). Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 film Psycho is an example of this trope, as the audience’s comprehension of the shower scene is predominantly psychological, and is determined by the ordering of images and sound, not the actual content. After the success of Sergei Eisenstein’s first full length feature film, Strike in 1920, he was commissioned by the Soviet government to make a film commemorating the historical uprising of the revolution in 1905,Show MoreRelatedClassical Movie Theories And Realism1433 Words   |  6 PagesOption 2 Classical film theories are generally divided into two main camps. They have been categorized as Formalism and Realism. The formalist approach looks at the structure and form of the film. It analyzes the method by which the story materializes and how it forces the viewer to react based on the way it is presented. It incorporates character development, photographic composition, camera movement, set design, editing, etc. to that end. The realist approach scrutinizes how a film represents â€Å"realityRead MoreUnique Characteristics of Soviet Montage5818 Words   |  24 PagesSoviet Montage Unique Characteristics of Soviet Montage Unlike Montage where by a combination  series of short shots are edited into a sequence to condense space, time, and information, Soviet Montage on the other hand is a style of filmmaking that is evolved to immerse the audience in a story and disguise technique was turned upside down in order to create the opposite emotional effect to bring the audience to the edge of their seat, and in the case of the Odessa Steps sequence, to push the viewerRead MoreUnique Characteristics of Soviet Montage5818 Words   |  24 PagesSoviet Montage Unique Characteristics of Soviet Montage Unlike Montage where by a combination  series of short shots are edited into a sequence to condense space, time, and information, Soviet Montage on the other hand is a style of filmmaking that is evolved to immerse the audience in a story and disguise technique was turned upside down in order to create the opposite emotional effect to bring the audience to the edge of their seat, and in the case of the Odessa Steps sequence, to push the viewer

The Lost Squatron Short Story Free Essays

On Tuesday morning, December 5, 2006, Lieutenant Jimmy McGrath, a fresh faced 22 year old, Naval academy graduate, maneuvered his fighter jet across the tarmac at the US Naval Air Station Florida to the designated runway. Behind him, awaiting their tower clearance orders were the four other members of Jimmy’s squadron. The men, boys really, some with peach fuzz beards, were training for assignment in Dubai, where they could fly sorties over Afghanistan and Iraq. We will write a custom essay sample on The Lost Squatron Short Story or any similar topic only for you Order Now All five pilots had been training here in Florida for several weeks, their high stress air combat training punctuated by wild Florida nights of heavy drinking and non-stop womanizing. The locals were used to it, having hosted these flyboys since Lauderdale nearly burst at the seams with newly drafted airmen, training in T-6s, and SNJ fighter trainers during World War 2. McGrath readied his jet at the flight line and after a final instrument check, increased throttle towards rotation speed, rumbling down the runway and easing back on the stick until the two ton plane defied gravity and began a steady ascent into the clouds hanging over the azure blue ocean. McGrath banked the plane right and felt momentary g-force pressure as he rolled away from the take off flight path to allow the next jet to leave the Earth.†Hee-haw† shrieked through Jimmy’s mic, as his wingman, Bobby-Joe Nicholson followed McGrath into the heavens. Nicholson grew up in tobacco rich North Carolina back country, and his accent and redneck colloquialisms made training a lot easier for everybody. Nicholson was followed by Andy Grayson, from Wichita, then Angel Fernandez of the Bronx, and finally Ron Fontaine, a graduate of the Donnelly Housing Projects in Detroit. Fontaine was voted by his peers the last person anyone wanted to meet in a back alley for a fight. He was also the most accomplished â€Å"stick man† among them. Despite his â€Å"officer and gentleman status, Fontaine’s 6 foot 2 inch muscular frame and tattooed biceps gave off a menacing appearance respected and feared by the other young pilots. The five jets screamed through the blue sky, each plane’s engine creating enormous jet trails flowing behind, until they maneuvered into formation. The planes floated in the air next to each other as if dangling on elastic strings, their high-powered engines, flying in unison, making it appear as if they were not even moving. â€Å"OK guys,† McGrath bellowed,† lets head south over the ocean and then take a bearing of 26 degrees, 3 minutes north, then 80 degrees, 7 minutes west toward Hen and Chickens Shoals.† Although he did not mention it, the day’s flight path would eventually take them into them into heart of the Devils Triangle. The Devils Triangle, or Bermuda Triangle as it was sometimes called, was a triangular patch of ocean in the Atlantic stretching from the Florida Keys south towards the Bermuda Islands. As every school kid knows, the Triangle’s legend of mystery encompasses numerous claims of disappearing ships and aircraft. None of the men gave any serious thought to the Triangle legend, not many people did anymore since the quasi-pulp fiction exposes published in the 1970s tried to give pseudo-scientific credence to alleged supernatural happenings in that part of the Atlantic Ocean. However, they all knew about it. â€Å"Where to skip,?† crackled over the airwaves from Ron Fontaine’s cockpit. â€Å"We’re headed to the old junked freighter for some bombing and strafing practice,† responded Lieutenant McGrath. â€Å"And Ron,† said the flight leader, â€Å"this time wait for my signal before you starting locking in on the target.† â€Å"Shiiiit,† Fontaine screeched into his headset, and the other pilots chuckled at the exchange between the two men. â€Å"Hey Lieutenant, this time can we go in youngest pilot first,?† said Fernandez. â€Å"What is it with you guys from New Yawk,† drawled Nicholson, â€Å"y’all think you’re born to tell the rest of us what to do.† â€Å"Hey, Tobacco boy,† I saw a guy like you once in the Bronx Zoo, behind bars,† Fernandex replied with a laugh. â€Å"Aw can it, you two,† shouted McGrath, â€Å"and tighten up the formation. Fernandez and Grayson pick it up back there.† â€Å"Aye, aye sir,† came the reply, in unison. The old freighter had been towed to this classified location in 1945, near the war’s end, and for 60 years had, along with several other decommissioned vessels, been used to train young hot-shot pilots in the art of air war. â€Å"All right, in about 60 second we’ll come up on the shoals bomb site, Nicholson and Fontaine, break right and take the first pass. Remember, nose guns first, then use one Sidewinder missile each the second time around,† McGrath ordered. The silver jets streaked through the cloud-filled blue sky like sharp knives slicing through warm biscuits. The two pilots took the lead and banked towards the abandoned and anchored old ship and locked onto the target with their computerized weapons guidance system. With today’s technology they could hit a small object from a distance of a mile or more, but their state side training still required close target approaches. The planes would come within 500 yards of the target on the first pass. The three other pilots kept a distance to watch the show and wait their turn, as determined by their flight leader, Lieutenant McGrath. Nicholson and Fontaine took turns firing their 30 Millimeter, seven barrel nose guns at the old tub, blasting holes in the rusting hull at apace of 3900 rounds a minute, which exploded with a fury of sparks, smoke and flying debris as they roared past â€Å"Nice work guys,† McGrath said. â€Å"Commander Taylor, my fuel is low, and my instruments are still acting up, maybe we should be heading West† crackled across his headphones in response. â€Å"Come back,† McGrath replied. Is that you Fernandez. Stop the bullshit, will ya.† â€Å"Not me, Lieutenant,† Fernandez replied, â€Å"Don’t expect me to give you a promotion,† he laughed. â€Å"Cut it out,† McGrath said, as he scanned the skies around him, â€Å"are one of you guys having instrument problems?† â€Å"Everyone check in,† he commanded. â€Å"Nicholson here, I’m fine Lieutenant.† â€Å"This is Fontaine, Jimmy, no problems with my bird.† â€Å"This is Grayson, sir, it wasn’t me.† â€Å"Well who the hell is playing around.† McGrath shouted. â€Å"I can’t see any land, sir† came the voice again. This time someone else responded. â€Å"Boys, this is Taylor, don’t worry, we left the Georgia swamp area 30 miles back, and we should be coming up on the Keys shortly,† â€Å"Who’s on this frequency, identify yourselves, † Lt. McGrath said into his helmet mic. He scanned his instrument radar panel and again looked outside his cockpit canopy but did not see any other planes in the bright, clear, mid-day sky. Without answering McGrath, the unknown chatter continued. â€Å"Hey Brownie, if we ever find our way back, I’m gonna propose to that nurse I met last week at the USO Holiday dance.† â€Å"Yeah, yeah sure, the one whose feet you kept stepping on during the Glen Miller piece?† â€Å"Shiiit, Glenn Miller, what the fuck is that all about,† Fontaine said. â€Å"Hey, one of you guys playing some sort of trick on our boy Jimmy,† Fernandez laughed. â€Å"Yeah, one of those old radio shows, or some shit like that,† Fontaine replied. â€Å"I don’t know about you but it’s freaking me out,† said Grayson. â€Å"Anyway, whoever it is mentioned Lauderdale, so it’s probably some old Navy guys out for a joyride. I see those guys come out on Sunday’s sometimes and fly around in those old radial engine trainers.† â€Å"Yeah, but it ain’t Sunday, and what they all doin’ on our radio frequency,† drawled Nicholson. â€Å"All right, all right, forget about it. It’s probably just somebody playing around,† bellowed McGrath, â€Å"lets get ready for the second run. One missile this time.† Fontaine and Grayson broke away from the formation again and headed toward the target This time they programmed their guidance system to fire one AIM-9 Sidewinder missile each at a distance of a half mile. Within seconds each jet shimmied slightly as their missiles dislodged from under their wings and moved off in an arc of white smoke toward the old half-sunken freighter. The missile warheads were loaded with only small amounts of explosives so that they would create damage but not completely obliterate the boat, leaving it sufficiently intact for further training runs. The two missiles struck, on forward one aft, almost simultaneously, and a column of smoke, debris, and sea water rose high into the air. As the mix fell back again, the pilots who were all observing the action noticed small black objects off in the distance, beyond the target area, moving slowly toward them. â€Å"What the fuck is that,† sad Fernandez into his mic. Grayson and Fontaine, who had pulled up and over the target, getting a birds-eye view of the damage they caused, rolled across the sky, unknowingly hurtling their jets directly in the path of the shadowy, black objects. Some three miles away, the rest of the squadron watched as Fontaine and Grayson blew past the objects and then banked and ascended up and to the left. As they had flown by, in the seconds they were adjacent to the objects, both pilots had seen something that had startled them. Grayson and Fontaine had peered into the cockpits of a squadron of World War 2 naval fighters, â€Å"Avengers†, each operated by a two or three man crew, a pilot facing forward, sometimes with a co-pilot, and a gunner operating a ball turret weapon aft. â€Å"Shiiit,† Fontaine yelled into his helmet mic, â€Å"did you see that Grayson.† â€Å"What the hell are those old warbirds doing way out here, the air museum operates outta Pensacola,† Grayson replied. â€Å"Hell if I know,† Fontaine said, â€Å"but they were sure as shittin surprised by us.† â€Å"Damn lucky we didn’t clip their wings.† â€Å"Hey skip,† Fontaine said, calling out to Lieutenant McGrath, † you won’t believe what’s headed your way.† â€Å"I see ’em, Fontaine, we’re gonna give those old buckets some room so we don’t blow their tails off with our engines,† McGrath replied. The remaining jets elevated their flight path to avoid the oncoming relics of the past, shooting with Mach speed into the lower stratosphere. â€Å"Commander, did you see that?,† said one of the warbird pilots. â€Å"I sure did, Tex,† replied Taylor, I don’t know what the hell it was but I saw a red, white and blue star on it’s side so it must be ours.† â€Å"Hell yes,† Tex’s gunner cried, â€Å"we must be close to the Shoals now. I see the target ship they towed out this way a few weeks ago.† â€Å"I bet that was some experimental jet the Nazis were using, I saw a few being worked on at the base. Just come over from Germany last week for testing,† said one of the Avenger pilots. OK, men, settle down† Commander Taylor ordered, â€Å"set a course for the direction of the target vessels and let’s get these tired birds home.† â€Å"Hey, my instruments are working again, Commander,† said one of the pilots. â€Å"Mine too, Chuck,† cried another. â€Å"Looks like we’ll make it back after all,† the Avenger flight leader said, â€Å"and not a moment too soon with these near empty gas gauges. Keep a tight formation as we head in boys. Follow my lead. Last one on the deck has to kiss Charlie McCarthy’s bald head.† The jet pilots listened, without a word, to the entire conversation going on below them. Fontaine and Grayson had rejoined the group and they were all now headed due East at 400 miles an hour at an elevation of 25,000 feet. Finally, Fernandez spoke up. â€Å"You catch that, Lieutenant.† â€Å"†Probably some re-enactors,† Lt. McGrath replied, although his voice had lost its usual firm, confident tone. â€Å"What the hell they doin’ out here, Jimmy,† said Nicholson, â€Å"don’t make no sense at all.† McGrath had to agree. This area was restricted to Naval air traffic. He thought he better contact the base and let them know what was going on. â€Å"Flight leader Bravo calling Lauderdale, come in Lauderdale.† The air was quiet. â€Å"Flight leader Bravo calling Lauderdale, come in Lauderdale† Nothing. â€Å"Hey Jimmy,† Fontaine said, â€Å"my computer just went down.† â€Å"Hey me too,† Nicholson shouted. The five jets flew in tight formation through the clouds as chaos erupted in their cockpits. â€Å"Flight leader Chuck Taylor calling Lauderdale, come in Lauderdale.† â€Å"This is Lauderdale, where the heck you guys been?† came the reply. The Base Commander’s been going crazy. They even called the War Department.† â€Å"You guys can tell the patrols to come back, we’re a little late but we’re home, † replied Commander Taylor. On the stormy evening of December 5, 1945, five TBM Avengers, their heavy radial engines roaring across the Florida sky, approached US Naval Air Station in tight formation. One by one the gleaming blue fighter planes lowered their flaps, cut off their throttles and eased their tired metal frames onto the tarmac. As they rolled off the runway, they passed rows of B-17 bombers, fresh from the battle over Europe, being serviced and refit for duty in the Pacific against the Japanese. Worried ground crews raced in gray jeeps toward each plane, dropping heavy wooden blocks under the wheels, and climbing up on the wings to draw back the heavy canopies to release the human cargo. The fourteen crew members scrambled to the airfield grounds and embraced one another, removing their yellow Mae West vests and crush caps, giving thanks that what was lost was once again found. Meanwhile, miles away, five jet fighters crossed the sky into an ethereal graveyard. They hurtled at supersonic speed into an endless vortex of space and time without up or down, without time or space, without any connection to the world they left behind. At NORAD, desperate computer messages flooded the communications room alerting the men and women who worked there of a crisis in the making. An Admiral rushed into the room in time to confront a telecommunications staffer who was the most recent recipient of the tragic news. â€Å"Sir,† the young ensign said to the astonished man,† Flight 19 is missing.† â€Å"Get me Rumsfeld,† the Admiral replied. Two wars, 6 decades apart. Two tragedies, dance partners in a macabre story with ironic parallels. The past and the future, melded together, and separated, one mystery solved, another one just beginning. How to cite The Lost Squatron Short Story, Papers

The Parol Evidence Rule Of Australia - Myassignmenthelp

Question: Write an essay on The Parole Evidence Rule according to the Contract law of Australia. Answer: The Parole Evidence Rule according to the Contract law of Australia is a substantive common law rule. It prevents the parties of a written contract against presenting the evidence that is extrinsic and discloses the ambiguity and adds or clarifies it to the written term of Contract that appears to be the whole[1]. Australian Contract Law is derived from the English Common Law System and its statutory specifications are applicable to some parts of Australia. Later on the Contractual Laws has been implemented by the Australian Parliament and also by the Australian Courts since the year 1980[2]. The term parol means words and is derived from the sources of Anglo-Norman, Anglo French or Legal French word. In support to the rational rules it is stated that according to the contracting parties there is a reduction in the agreement to any final and single writing or extrinsic evidence derived from the past and those terms shouldnt be considered while the writing is being interpreted[3]. As the parties decided to leave the agreement or those terms shouldnt be considered while writing as its the decision of the parties to leave each other from the contract. In other way it can also be stated that that the evidence prior to written contract shouldnt be contradictory to the writing[4]. The rules also states that in order to make it effective the contract should be first and finally be integrated in writing. According to the judgment of the Court it must be Final Agreement which is accepted by the parties. The objective approach of parol evidence rule discusses the manner in which the parol evidence rule is applicable and used in the territories in Australia. It is an evident fact which is observed since many years that the Australian contract law has always had an objective approach towards contracting and it is equally evident that that existence of the parol evidence rule has always been a centre of controversies in Australia[5]. Thus, even after the objective approach of contracting in Australia, the supporters of the parol evidence rule in the recent times have raised their concern whether the said parol evidence rule should be applied and made a regular usage or a law giving it a proper statute. The parol evidence rule in Australia got popular after it was intensely discussed in a famous Australian case called the Codelfa Constructions v State Rail Authority of New South Wales which was decided in the year 1982[6]. In the said case, the State Rail Authority of New South Wales had entered into a contract with the Codelfa Construction to built and erect two tunnels in Sydney for an expansion of the railway network which was planned many months in advance. The Codelfa Construction was given a deadline or a due date by which they had to complete the said work of erecting two tunnels and the final completion date for the said work was thus finalized. As the work was under a dead line, the Codelfa Construction started the work immediately trying to finish the same under the dead line by making their employees work in three shifts throughout the day. However, due to the noise that the construction work created all throughout the day, an injunction was soon issued against the Codelfa Construction. Thus, the third shift of the work was stopped for a while and Codelfa Construction was made to promise to try and minimize and reduce the construction noise between 10 pm to 6 am. Thus, the Codelfa Construction levied certain extra charges from the State Rail Authority of New South Wales to meet the needs of the changed working schedules. Thus, the primary issue in the said case of Codelfa Constructions v State Rail Authority of New South Wales is implications on the term of the contract, however while deciding the case the Judge Mason also discussed the admission on parol evidence rule in detail. Thus, the said case is considered to be one of the most important Australian case laws where the parol evidence rule was discussed and examined in great length[7]. Thus, in the judgment of the said case, Justice Mason highlighted and examined the parol evidence rule and stated that the broader objective of the parol evidence rule is to not include extrinsic evidence (except surrounding situations) and including direct statement in relation to intention and various negotiations to add to, subtract from, change or contradict or violate the language of the written agreement, contract or instrument[8]. Thus, the said clarification concerning the parol evidence rule was sufficient and most suitable to be applicable even in the American Courts. However, the said clarification when compared to the objective approach of the contracting rules in Australia, the said clarification is fundamentally different and the primary difference is that the parol evidence rule in Australia consists of a clear exception of evidence rules which realte to surrounding situations. Thus, while delivering the decision in the said case, Justice Mason reffered to the simple meaning and approach f contracts in Australia, according to which the any other additional evidence in any other form is generally avoided by the Court, if the meaning of the contract is clear and definite. However, Justice Mason even accepted that the plain meaning and approach needs the admission and acceptance of another evidence especially in situations surrounded by the formation of a contract which is necessary and required to interpret the contract if any uncertainty about it is created in a later period[9]. However, the American Courts since many years have raised the same concern rejecting the parol evidence rule stating that it allows the Court to believe that a document is allowed to have more than one or multiple meanings which makes it impossible for the Court to reach or conclude a single and accepted meaning for the said document. However, with the objective approach of contracti ng which is used in Australia, the American approach for the same becomes unacceptable and unnecessary as in the said case the Courts and the Judges do not try to determine what the contracting parties try to mean in their written contracts but only try to establish what a reasonable person would conclude if he was in the similar situation of the people writing the contract[10]. During the first half of the 20th century the English Courts and the Australian courts have insisted that the Court can explain a contract without even considering the circumstances based on which the contract was executed. However, in the year 1971 the House of Lords have held that while evidence shall be executed based on the intentions of the parties to the contract. It is irrelevant to the structure of the contract and that contracts should be excluded from evidence of the general background of the contract that is known to parties at the time when the contract was entered into. This means that though the Court will reject the terms of the contract that were not part of the written agreement, the Court will however, question the parties and shall ask them to explain what their intention or explanation had been if such a contract was part of the written contract. Justice Mason held that such terms should be included as part of evidence only when the terms were known to the contrac ting parties of the contract and that they were aware of the facts[11]. Notably, it may held that the evidence that was earlier admissible based on the factual background of the agreement shall now be not regarded as part of the evidence. Such evidence shall only be admissible if the contracting parties knew the facts of the case and nothing shall be taken as evidence unless such a clause was not part of the written agreement. This is regarded as objective theory of the contracting rule, as per this rule the original intentions of the contracting parties are considered as relevant and true and the only thing that matters here is the objective of the parties who have formed a contract together. By relying on this approach the Courts of Australia have allowed the background information to come into force as evidence that is accepted by the Court. The Court construes the written contract in a way that is understood by the parties and interprets it the way the parties to the contract should have understood it at par with the irrelevant parol evidence rule[12 ]. Mason J has construed the objective rule by saying that, There may perhaps be one situation in which evidence of the actual intention of the parties should be allowed to prevail over their presumed intention. If it transpires that the parties have refused to include in the contract a provision which would give effect to the presumed intention of persons in their position it may be proper to receive evidence of that refusal. After all, the court is interpreting the contract that the parties have made and in that exercise the court takes into account what reasonable men in that situation would have intended to convey by the words chosen. However, is it right to carry that exercise to the point of placing on the words of the contract a meaning which the parties have united in rejecting? It is possible that evidence of mutual intention, if amounting to concurrence, is receivable so as to negative an inference sought to be drawn from surrounding circumstance[13]. Sometimes Justice Mason seemed to adopt the subjective theory of contracting law. The subjective theory of law relied more on the terms and conditions of the contract. In a jurisdiction that seems to be adopting the objective theory of the contract then it nothing would be wrong if the court relied on such a theory for interpretation and analysis of the contract. It is hence understandable the reason why Justice Mason have a more positive inclination towards the objective reasoning of the contract. However, this is not the only rationale why Justice Mason has relied on the objective theory; there are many other reasons why the Judge seems to accept the objective reasoning of the contract. Once such reason may include that he feels that it would be unfair on the part of the Court to completely reject the intention of the parties and not to understand their point of view who were very well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. This notion is absolutely opposite to the rule that is followed in America, wherein, it was seen that in most of the cases the Courts rely on the contractual terms and conditions rather than relying on the intention of the parties. Hence, we may conclude that in Australia, in most cases, the Judges prefer on relying on the objective theory. In this essay, there is the stipulation of the fact that neither the objective nor the subjective theories of making a contract are absolutely consistent in making the treatment of the rule of parole evidence. In the practical terms both the theories enable the establishment of the fact of the correct nature of contract[14]. The approach of the objective help in the identification of the idea that while entering into a contract, the parties tend to do some different thing than the terms that are agreed for working together to reach a certain goal. The relationship between the parties has received formality and it has been taken out from that realm that is social. Based on this view, the contract that is in the written form is not considered as a record that is long lasting and reliable as the agreement has been entered into between the parties a long time back and the performance that occurs results in a distinct type of social action. During the time of formalizing a contract in which the parties has made or performed a separate kind of action that is public and makes the drawing of the practices of the society that makes the dealings with the relationships in between the non-intimates. The practices that are formulated to ensure the fairness and predictability in the contractual relationships are direc ted primarily to make the resolution of the disputes that is without any concern for the continuing viability of the contractual relationship. Hence, from this perspective it can be said that the interpretation of the contract is made for the purpose of judging the objectivity of the contract. The relationships between the parties to the contract are irrelevant. The goal of the interpreter of any written contract is not to make the finding of the intention of the parties to the contract but the primary goal of interpretation of contract is make the interpretation of the contractual behavior as an act of the public. The comparison between the subjective and the objective theory of rules of contract makes the emphasis of the actors, which play a major part in the making of contract. The main actors are regarded as the people and the factors of social integration that are in the background of the contract formation. The comparison of the rule of parole evidence acts as least applicable to those agreements that are having the close acquaintance. In the likely term there would be the several presumptions and understanding in between the parties to the contract that may form in the background at the time of entering into the contract, which would be impossible to understand at the time when the agreement is reached[15]. The agreement that lies between the family members that are close are dominantly personal and unavoidable. The basis of understanding of the contracts between the close family members is to make the understanding of the terms that make the contract personal. The consideration that is relevant is the nature of the contracting behavior[16]. According to the referred matter we can state that regarding the case of writing contract we can state that the Parol Evidence Rule obstructs the admission of further extrinsic evidence in order to clarify the terms of the Contract. It basically consist of identifying and construction which means that identifying prevents the extrinsic evidence from being included into the contradict or vary terms regarding the contract as practicably they appear to be in the contract and on the other side we can also state that construction limits evidence which might be added to the explanation of those as the rule of parol works as confines. As regarded in the project the term extrinsic evidence means anything other than that of the contractual agreement in writing. This also includes oral conversation, negotiation in early stage, letters and drafts done earlier in the contract. The parol evidence rule in purpose of identifying helps in preventing admission of extrinsic evidence[17]. Parol rule is only applicable to the contract which is wholly made in writing. This means that Courts will include extrinsic evidence in order to identify the terms of those contracts which are made in writing partially. The parol evidence also applies in order to prevent the applicability of extrinsic evidence in order to construct the3 terms and conditions of the existing contract. Extrinsic evidence is also practicable in resolving the ambiguity for the terms of construction regarding the rules and regulations of the contract[18]. References: Ayres, Ian.Studies in Contract Law. Foundation Press, 2012. Botero, David Augusto Echeverry. "Contract Interpretation Law in Australia: It Is a Maze, Not a Straight Way." Carlin, Tyrone M. "Rise (and Fall) of Implied Duties of Good Faith in Contractual Performance in Australia, The."UNSWLJ25 (2012): 99. Dyani, Ntombizozuko, and Mtendeweka Mhango. "Pension death benefits under the Malawi Pension Bill 14 of 2010: reflections from South Africa and Australia."The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa(2012): 18-41. Emerson, Robert W. "Franchising and the Parol Evidence Rule."American Business Law Journal50.3 (2013): 659-728. Epstein, David G., Adam L. Tate, and William Yaris. "Fifty: Shades of Grey-Uncertainty About Extrinsic Evidence and Parol Evidence After All These UCC Years."Ariz. St. LJ45 (2013): 925. Epstein, David G., Timothy Archer, and Shalayne Davis. "Extrinsic Evidence, Parol Evidence, and the Parol Evidence Rule: a Call for Courts to Use the Reasoning of the Restatements Rather than the Rhetoric of Common Law."NML Rev.44 (2014): 49. Kee, Christopher, and Elisabeth Opie. "The principle of remediation."Sharing International Commercial(2012). Marcus, Paul, and Vicki C. Waye. "Australia and the United States: Two Common Criminal Justice Systems Uncommonly at Odds Part 2."Tulane Journal of International Comparative Law18.2 (2010): 09-78. McCormick, P. "Law reform." Mohamed, Shair, et al. "A critical appraisal of the parol evidence rule in contract law."Proceedings of SOCIOINT14: International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities. International Organisation Centre of Academic Research, 2014. Naylor, Brownwyn, and Johannes Schmidt. "Do Prisoners Have a Right to Fairness before the Parole Board."Sydney L. Rev.32 (2010): 437. Ostendorf, Patrick. "The exclusionary rule of English law and its proper characterisation in the conflict of lawsis it a rule of evidence or contract interpretation?."Journal of Private International Law11.1 (2015): 163-183. Ostendorf, Patrick. "The exclusionary rule of English law and its proper characterisation in the conflict of lawsis it a rule of evidence or contract interpretation?."Journal of Private International Law11.1 (2015): 163-183. Perillo, Joseph M. "Donee Beneficiaries and the Parol Evidence Rule.". Thomas L. Rev.26 (2013): 496. Pichhadze, Amir. "Can, and Should, the Parole Evidence Rule Be Invoked by or Against Tax Authorities in Tax Litigation? Distilling Lessons from US Jurisprudence."Bulletin for International Taxation67.9 (2013): 474-490. Schauer, Frederick. "On the Relationship Between Legal and Ordinary Language."Speaking of Language and Law: Conversations on the Work of Peter Tiersma(2015): 35. Schiavo, Frank L. "Alternative Approach to the Parol Evidence Rule: A Rejection of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts; Mitchill v. Lath Revisited, An."Cap. UL Rev.41 (2013): 759.