Scott is trying to introduce oral evidence in court to alter the terms of a written contract he had with Bonnie.Bonnie has raised the parol evidence rule as an objection to Scott's testimony.In which of the following circumstances will Scott not be able to introduce the oral evidence?
A) The contract has an integration clause in it and Scott's point of contention is covered in detail in the contract, although not to his favor.
B) There was a mutual mistake of a material fact when the contract was entered into.
C) The oral evidence is introduced to clarify the meaning of an ambiguous term used in the written contract.
D) Scott claims that he was defrauded into entering into the contract and wants to testify about the intentional misrepresentations of material facts.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The parol evidence rule states that a party cannot introduce oral evidence to alter the terms of a written contract if the contract is a complete and final expression of the parties' agreement. An integration clause in the contract indicates that it is a complete and final expression of the agreement between the parties, so Scott cannot introduce oral evidence in this situation. The other options (B, C, and D) are exceptions to the parol evidence rule, meaning that oral evidence can be introduced in those situations.

Scott Is Trying to Introduce Oral Evidence in Court to Alter