Definition
Parol agreements are contracts or obligations that are either oral or in writing but are not under seal. The defining characteristic is the absence of a formal seal — not the absence of writing. A written contract signed without a seal is a parol agreement; a contract with a wax seal or its modern equivalent is a specialty.
At common law, this distinction between sealed instruments (specialties) and unsealed ones (parol agreements) was the foundational dividing line in contract law. The seal carried distinct legal consequences: a longer statute of limitations, enforceability without consideration, and different procedural treatment. Parol agreements, whether oral or written-but-unsealed, were governed by a different and generally less favorable set of rules.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Parol" as an adjective means oral or verbal, as opposed to written. In everyday speech, parol suggests something spoken rather than documented.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's defines parol as "given or done by word of mouth; oral; — applied to evidence, contracts, etc." The association with orality is explicit.
The gap between common and legal meaning here is practically important. Both modern and historical common usage treat "parol" as synonymous with "oral" or "unwritten." The legal meaning is broader: a parol agreement can be fully written. The operative distinction in law is not oral versus written, but sealed versus unsealed. A researcher encountering "parol" in a historical legal source should not automatically read it as meaning "spoken."
---
Common Confusion
PAROL AGREEMENTS vs. PAROL EVIDENCE: These are related but distinct concepts. Parol agreements describes a category of contract defined by the absence of a seal. The parol evidence rule is a doctrine governing what extrinsic evidence may be used to interpret or contradict a written contract. The two share the word "parol" and frequently appear together in contract disputes, but a researcher should not conflate the classification of a contract (parol vs. specialty) with the evidentiary rule governing what may be introduced at trial.
PAROL AGREEMENTS vs. ORAL CONTRACTS: In modern usage, "oral contract" has largely displaced "parol agreement" in everyday legal writing, and the two are often treated as synonymous. Historically, they were not equivalent. An oral contract is necessarily a parol agreement, but a parol agreement could also be a written instrument lacking a seal. The older terminology captures the sealed/unsealed distinction; the modern terminology captures only the oral/written one.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The most important research trap with this term is the historical weight of the seal distinction. Sources written before the twentieth century treat the sealed/unsealed line as fundamental — affecting limitations periods, consideration requirements, and procedural form of action. Researchers reading nineteenth-century case law or treatises will encounter parol agreements treated as a specific legal category with defined consequences, not merely as a casual reference to oral dealings.
The seal distinction has largely collapsed in American law. Most states abolished or rendered the seal legally insignificant through statute during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Uniform Commercial Code further eroded the distinction in commercial contexts. A source from 1850 treating a parol agreement as categorically different from a specialty may be applying rules that no longer exist in the jurisdiction being researched.
The connection to the parol evidence rule is important for corpus navigation. That doctrine, while sharing the terminology, is a separate body of law governing contract interpretation. Researchers should trace the two threads independently: the parol/specialty classification belongs to the history of contract formation and enforcement; the parol evidence rule belongs to the law of contract interpretation and integration. In Law Mind, these are treated separately — the parol evidence rule has its own encyclopedia entry at contracts_40.
Historical New York sources are particularly relevant to this term. Rapalje & Lawrence cross-references 3 Johnson's Cases 60 (N.Y.), suggesting early American courts were actively defining and applying the category. New York's early common law development on contract formation makes its case law a useful primary source for researchers tracing how American courts adapted the English sealed/unsealed framework.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and Rapalje & Lawrence are in complete agreement on the core definition, and both quote the same formulation — that parol agreements are those "either by word of mouth or committed to writing, but not under seal" — attributing the underlying point to Wharton and to Stephens' Commentaries respectively. This convergence reflects how settled the doctrinal definition was: the dictionaries are recording received learning, not resolving a contested point.
What neither source addresses is the trajectory of the seal's legal significance. Both were written during a period when the sealed/unsealed distinction still carried practical consequences in many American jurisdictions. Neither anticipates the statutory erosion of the seal that would largely render the parol/specialty classification obsolete by the mid-twentieth century. A researcher relying solely on these historical definitions will have an accurate picture of the old law but no warning that the category has been substantially displaced in modern practice.
Rapalje & Lawrence's cross-reference to Stephens' Commentaries (2 Steph. Com., 7th ed., 55) points to English common law as the source tradition. Researchers tracing the doctrinal origins should note that the English common law framework was the direct parent of the American rule, though American jurisdictions diverged earlier and more aggressively in abolishing seal requirements.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Most American states have abolished or severely limited the legal effect of the seal by statute, collapsing the practical distinction between parol agreements and specialties. A minority of jurisdictions retained modified seal doctrines longer, and the UCC governs commercial contracts largely without reference to seals. Researchers working in equity or with pre-twentieth-century sources should verify the applicable jurisdiction's statutory treatment of seals before relying on the parol/specialty framework.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
contracts_40: Interpretation — Parol Evidence Rule (Complete vs. Partial Integration) — The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia
---