That's not entirely true. Information outside the contract (letters, verbal discussions) can be used to clarify the meaning of the contract. Most contracts contain a clause the forbids the use of such evidence, because otherwise, it is admissible. Outside evidence cannot be used to contradict the plain terms of a written contract, where it is clear that the parties intended that the contract be an "integrated", i.e., whole, contract.
verbal discussions rather moot
That’s not entirely true. Information outside the contract (letters, verbal discussions) can be used to clarify the meaning of the contract. Most contracts contain a clause the forbids the use of such evidence, because otherwise, it is admissible. Outside evidence cannot be used to contradict the plain terms of a written contract, where it is clear that the parties intended that the contract be an “integrated”, i.e., whole, contract.
************************************************************
Hence the term rather moot instead of saying entirely moot.
While it has been about 50 years since my business law class, I do recall that the cases and appeals I studied then, always fell back on the principle that the written contract was the whole enchilada.
Any side discussions of importance, not in the contract, should have been added. Now that may have been the instructors intent-to demonstrate the importance of a complete contract.
However, I did do some additional research in the legal section, but did not find any cases contrary to that principle, though I am sure that there were Judges who might have ruled differently then and in the 50 years since then.
Hence the term rather moot, rather than totally irrelevant and entirely moot.