In both cases, extrinsic evidence could be introduced to show a want of jurisdiction.

However, this does not include extrinsic evidence to the deliberation process.

Extrinsic evidence is held to be synonymous with evidence from another source.

Before the witness can be impeached the examiner must have extrinsic evidence of the prior statement.

Therefore, it is argued, extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or their meaning.

Extrinsic evidence is defined as evidence outside the writings, in this case the deed.

One may bring to bear in this process extrinsic evidence, including negotiations, to convince the court to order the document's rectification.

Extrinsic evidence includes scholarly journal articles and expert testimony.

The test is whether a third party is able to identify the property from the terms of the bond itself, without recourse to extrinsic evidence.

When, therefore, the contract as written is lacking or incomplete, there is no problem with then referring to extrinsic evidence.

If a contract is in writing and final to at least one term (integrated), parol or extrinsic evidence will generally be excluded.

The principle was determined, and applied to the facts of this case, that the contractual document may not be varied by extrinsic evidence.

This other evidence is known as Extrinsic Evidence and is a fairly common principle.

Other than the above cited intrinsic sources of evidence courts may also look to extrinsic evidence, though it is of secondary importance.

The rules do not prevent the use of extrinsic evidence in interpreting genuine ambiguities in the words of the contract.

"Absent ambiguity, the parties' intentions must be discerned from the four corners of the document, and extrinsic evidence may not be considered."

In its summary the commission wrote: "Independent of extrinsic evidence, the Commission finds:

Most US jurisdictions require a cross-examiner to lay a foundation before using extrinsic evidence to demonstrate bias for impeachment purposes.

Since the district court did not look at extrinsic evidence, the appellate court remanded this case to the district court.

The inventor's intent must be based on the patent, the court is not allowed to use extrinsic evidence of the inventor's intent.

On remand, the district court concluded that no extrinsic evidence indicated that the advertisement in question misled or confused any consumers.

In view of this conclusion, the court found it unnecessary to consider the parties' conduct after 16 April 1985, or any other extrinsic evidence relating to surrounding circumstances.

In most jurisdictions there are numerous exceptions to this rule, and in those jurisdictions, extrinsic evidence may be admitted for the following purposes:

The Second Circuit reversed, holding that extrinsic evidence was necessary to determine if eBay's advertisements were likely to mislead or confuse consumers.

The rule applies to parol evidence, as well as other extrinsic evidence (such as written correspondence that does not form a separate contract) regarding a contract.