Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Parol Evidence Rule

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Parol Evidence RuleQuestion 1 of 20

A startup company hired a marketing firm via a written contract to manage a six-month advertising campaign. The contract specified the services and a monthly fee, and it contained a merger clause. It did not contain a 'no oral modification' clause. Two months into the campaign, the startup's CEO was unhappy with the results. The CEO and the firm's president orally agreed to terminate the contract at the end of the second month, with no further payments due. A week later, the startup received a bill for the third month. The marketing firm claims the original written contract is still in effect.

In a dispute over the third month's payment, is evidence of the oral termination agreement admissible? Select one.

Yes, because the oral agreement was a subsequent agreement to rescind the contract.

No, because the oral agreement was an attempted accord and satisfaction that lacked new consideration.

No, because the merger clause prevents any modification to the contract unless it is in writing.

Yes, because the firm's poor performance made the contract ambiguous, allowing parol evidence.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Parol Evidence Rule

Practice Parol Evidence Rule in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Parol Evidence Rule, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

In a dispute over the third month's payment, is evidence of the oral termination agreement admissible? Select one.

Yes, because the oral agreement was a subsequent agreement to rescind the contract. (correct answer)
No, because the oral agreement was an attempted accord and satisfaction that lacked new consideration.
No, because the merger clause prevents any modification to the contract unless it is in writing.
Yes, because the firm's poor performance made the contract ambiguous, allowing parol evidence.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of contract modification and termination, specifically the difference between modifying contract terms versus completely rescinding (canceling) a contract. When you see disputes about oral agreements that seem to conflict with written contracts, focus on whether the parties intended to change the contract or eliminate it entirely. The oral agreement between the CEO and firm president was a mutual rescission - both parties agreed to completely terminate the contract rather than modify its terms. Rescission is treated differently from modification under contract law because it represents a mutual agreement to release each other from all future obligations. Since both parties agreed to end the contract with no further payments due, this constitutes a valid rescission that doesn't require written documentation, even when the original contract contains a merger clause. Answer A correctly identifies this as a subsequent agreement to rescind. Answer B is wrong because this isn't an accord and satisfaction situation - that involves settling a disputed obligation for less than claimed, which isn't what happened here. Answer C incorrectly applies the merger clause to rescission; merger clauses typically prevent evidence of prior agreements that contradict the written contract, but don't prevent subsequent mutual rescission agreements. Answer D misunderstands parol evidence rules - poor performance doesn't make a contract "ambiguous," and parol evidence rules generally don't apply to subsequent agreements anyway. Remember: Distinguish between contract modification (changing terms) and rescission (complete cancellation). Rescission agreements are generally enforceable even when the original contract has strict modification requirements, as long as both parties mutually agree to terminate.

Question 2

A bride and a caterer had extensive email exchanges about the menu for a wedding reception. They eventually signed a one-page 'Catering Agreement' which listed the final menu items, the price per guest, and the date. The agreement did not have a merger clause. The bride now claims that one of the emails, sent before the agreement was signed, constituted a promise by the caterer to provide a five-tier wedding cake at no extra charge. The signed agreement does not mention a cake.

In a dispute over payment for the cake, is the email promising a free cake admissible? Select one.

No, because the final signed agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, including emails.
Yes, because the signed document was not intended as a complete integration of their agreement, and the email supplements its terms. (correct answer)
No, because a promise to provide a significant item like a wedding cake for free lacks consideration.
Yes, because electronic records like emails are not subject to the parol evidence rule, which applies only to oral statements.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of the parol evidence rule, which governs when prior negotiations can be used to interpret or supplement a written contract. The key issue is whether the signed agreement was intended as a complete integration of all terms. Answer B is correct because the absence of a merger clause and the limited scope of the one-page agreement suggest it wasn't intended as a complete integration. When a written contract doesn't contain all agreed-upon terms, courts allow parol evidence to supplement (not contradict) those terms. Since the cake isn't mentioned at all in the agreement, the email promise would supplement rather than contradict the written terms. Answer A incorrectly assumes that any signed agreement automatically supersedes all prior negotiations. This is only true when the written contract is a complete integration, which requires evidence that the parties intended it to contain all their agreements. Without a merger clause and given the limited content, this assumption fails. Answer C misapplies consideration doctrine. The email was part of ongoing negotiations for the catering contract. The bride's promise to pay for catering services provides consideration for all the caterer's promises, including the free cake. Consideration supports the entire bargained-for exchange, not each individual promise separately. Answer D creates a false distinction between written and oral parol evidence. The parol evidence rule applies equally to all forms of prior negotiations—written emails, oral conversations, or other documents. The medium doesn't determine admissibility. Remember: Look for merger clauses and assess whether the written agreement appears complete. No merger clause often signals that parol evidence may be admissible to supplement terms.

Question 3

A licensor and licensee executed a detailed 20-page software licensing agreement after months of negotiation. The agreement contains a merger clause. It grants the licensee the right to use the software for 'internal business purposes only.' The licensee now argues that during a phone call just before the agreement was signed, the licensor's CEO gave the licensee permission to use the software on behalf of its parent company as well. The licensor objects to the introduction of this evidence.

What is the most likely reason a court would exclude evidence of the CEO's contemporaneous oral statement? Select one.

The statement is inadmissible hearsay not subject to any exception.
The statement would vary the terms of a completely integrated agreement. (correct answer)
The CEO, as an executive, lacked the actual authority to orally modify the negotiated agreement.
The agreement is governed by the UCC, which requires all modifications to be in writing.

Explanation: The parol evidence rule bars not only prior agreements but also contemporaneous oral agreements when the parties have adopted a writing as a total integration of their deal. The 20-page agreement with a merger clause is clearly a total integration. The CEO's alleged oral permission would expand the scope of the license beyond 'internal business purposes only,' thus varying and adding to the terms of the written contract. As such, evidence of the statement is barred by the parol evidence rule.

Question 4

You represent a publisher who entered into a written contract with an author. The contract provides the author with a 10% royalty on all sales. It contains a merger clause. The author is now suing your client, claiming that during negotiations, your client's editor orally promised to spend at least $50,000 on marketing for the book. This promise does not appear in the written contract. The author claims this promise induced her to accept the 10% royalty instead of demanding 15%.

What is the publisher's strongest argument for excluding evidence of the oral promise about marketing expenditures? Select one.

The author's claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds because the promise was not in writing.
The parol evidence rule bars the admission of a prior oral promise that adds a material term to a fully integrated contract. (correct answer)
The oral promise is unenforceable because it lacks separate consideration from the written contract.
The alleged promise is too indefinite to be enforced as a contractual term.

Explanation: When you encounter a contracts question involving both a written agreement and alleged oral promises, you're likely dealing with the parol evidence rule. This rule prevents parties from introducing evidence of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements that would contradict or add terms to a fully integrated written contract. Here, the contract contains a merger clause, which signals that the parties intended the written document to be the complete and final expression of their agreement (fully integrated). The parol evidence rule therefore bars evidence of the editor's oral promise to spend $50,000 on marketing because this would add a material term not found in the integrated contract. The fact that this promise allegedly influenced the author's decision on royalty rates doesn't overcome the rule's application. Looking at the wrong answers: (A) incorrectly invokes the Statute of Frauds, which requires certain contracts to be in writing but doesn't apply to oral promises that are part of contract formation discussions. (C) misunderstands consideration - the oral promise was part of the overall negotiation for the same contract, so separate consideration isn't required. (D) focuses on indefiniteness, but while the promise might be somewhat vague, the parol evidence rule provides a stronger, more direct bar to admission. Remember this key distinction: the Statute of Frauds determines what contracts must be written, while the parol evidence rule determines what evidence can be used to interpret or supplement written contracts. When you see a merger clause in a contracts question, the parol evidence rule should be your first consideration for excluding oral agreements.

Question 5

A client hired an attorney to handle a business litigation matter. They signed a written retainer agreement that provided for an hourly fee of $400. The agreement included a merger clause. Due to a typo, one sentence read: 'Client agrees to pay a total fee not to exceed Ten Dollars ($ 10.00).' Both parties understood the intended cap was $10,000. When the final bill was $9,500, the client refused to pay more than $10, citing the written contract. The attorney sued the client to have the contract corrected.

In the attorney's action for reformation, is parol evidence of the intended $10,000 fee cap admissible? Select one.

No, because the parol evidence rule bars evidence that directly contradicts a clear price term in a fully integrated contract.
No, because the attorney, as the drafter of the contract, should be held to the terms as written.
Yes, because the term 'Ten Dollars ($10.00)' is patently ambiguous when read in the context of a major litigation matter.
Yes, because the parol evidence rule does not apply when a party seeks the equitable remedy of reformation due to a scrivener's error. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter a question about parol evidence and contract reformation, you need to distinguish between two different legal contexts: contract interpretation versus equitable remedies. The parol evidence rule generally prohibits introducing external evidence to contradict or modify the terms of a fully integrated written contract. However, this rule has important exceptions, and reformation is one of the most significant. Answer D is correct because reformation is an equitable remedy that allows courts to correct written contracts when they don't accurately reflect the parties' actual agreement due to mistakes like scrivener's errors. Since both parties intended a $10,000 cap but the contract mistakenly states $10, parol evidence of their true intent is admissible to support reformation. The parol evidence rule simply doesn't apply in reformation actions—the goal isn't to vary the contract terms but to correct what was actually agreed upon. Answer A is wrong because while the parol evidence rule normally bars contradictory evidence, reformation proceedings are a recognized exception to this rule. Answer B is wrong because the contra proferentem rule (construing contracts against the drafter) applies to ambiguous terms, not obvious clerical errors where mutual intent is clear. Answer C is wrong because this isn't about ambiguity—it's about a clear typographical mistake where both parties understood the intended meaning. Study tip: Remember that reformation is an equitable "escape hatch" from the parol evidence rule. When you see obvious clerical errors or mutual mistakes in contract formation, think reformation—not contract interpretation rules.

Question 6

A landowner entered into a written agreement to sell a parcel of land to a developer. The agreement was complete in all respects, containing a description of the property, price, and closing date, as well as a merger clause. However, the developer claims that the parties had a contemporaneous oral agreement that the developer's obligation to purchase was contingent on successfully rezoning the property for commercial use. The developer failed to get the property rezoned and now seeks to back out of the deal.

Is evidence of the oral agreement regarding rezoning likely to be admissible to excuse the developer's performance? Select one.

Yes, because it establishes a condition precedent to the developer's duty to perform under the contract.
Yes, because the doctrine of frustration of purpose applies when the land cannot be used as intended.
No, because all conditions related to contracts for the sale of land must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds.
No, because the agreement concerned a condition on performance, which is a term that would have been included in the integrated writing. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter contract interpretation questions involving both written agreements and alleged oral terms, you're dealing with the parol evidence rule. This rule generally prohibits introducing extrinsic evidence to contradict or supplement an integrated written contract. The correct answer is D because the oral rezoning condition directly relates to the developer's performance obligations under the contract. Since the written agreement contains a merger clause, it's treated as a fully integrated contract. Courts presume that important conditions affecting a party's duty to perform—especially in sophisticated real estate transactions—would have been included in the integrated writing. The parol evidence rule therefore bars evidence of this oral condition. Let's examine why the other options fail: A is incorrect because while the oral agreement might establish a condition precedent, the parol evidence rule still prohibits its admission when dealing with an integrated contract containing performance-related terms. B misapplies frustration of purpose, which excuses performance when an unforeseen event destroys the contract's fundamental purpose—here, the developer knew rezoning was uncertain and could have negotiated for this contingency in writing. C incorrectly states the Statute of Frauds rule; while land sale contracts must be written, the Statute doesn't specifically require all conditions to be written—that's a parol evidence rule issue. Study tip: When you see merger clauses in contract questions, immediately think parol evidence rule. Ask yourself: would this alleged oral term naturally belong in the written contract? Performance conditions in sophisticated agreements almost always would, making them inadmissible under the parol evidence rule.

Question 7

A vineyard and a wine distributor have a written contract for the distributor to purchase 1,000 cases of wine. The contract, which contains a merger clause, is silent as to whether the distributor can return unsold wine for credit. The distributor attempts to return 100 cases of unsold wine, and the vineyard refuses to accept them. At trial, the distributor seeks to introduce evidence that for the past five years, under identical annual contracts, the vineyard has consistently accepted unsold wine for full credit.

Is the evidence of the parties' prior dealings likely admissible? Select one.

No, because the merger clause in the current contract bars any evidence of prior agreements or dealings.
No, because allowing returns would contradict the contract's specified quantity term of 1,000 cases.
Yes, because evidence of course of dealing is admissible to supplement the terms of the agreement. (correct answer)
Yes, because the vineyard's past acceptance of returns constitutes a waiver of its rights under the current contract.

Explanation: Under UCC Article 2, which governs contracts for the sale of goods, evidence of course of dealing, usage of trade, or course of performance can be used to explain or supplement a written contract. This is true even if the contract is fully integrated with a merger clause. The evidence of the past five years of consistent conduct establishes a course of dealing between the parties that can be used to supplement the silent contract by establishing a term allowing returns.

Question 8

A construction company signed a written contract with a supplier for the purchase of 1,000 steel beams. The contract specified the dimensions and grade of the steel but was silent on warranties. The contract contained a merger clause. After delivery, many beams were found to be defective. The company sued for breach of warranty. The supplier moved to exclude any evidence of warranties, arguing the written contract was the complete agreement. The company seeks to introduce evidence that in the steel supply industry, it is a universal custom for suppliers to warrant that beams are free from defects.

Will the court likely permit the construction company to introduce evidence of the industry custom regarding warranties? Select one.

No, because the merger clause explicitly bars the introduction of any terms not contained within the written document.
No, because an implied warranty of merchantability cannot be created through parol evidence.
Yes, because usage of trade can be used to supplement the terms of a contract for the sale of goods. (correct answer)
Yes, because the absence of a warranty term makes the contract ambiguous and requires clarification.

Explanation: Under UCC Article 2, which governs this sale of goods, evidence of usage of trade is admissible to supplement or qualify the terms of an agreement. A usage of trade is a practice or method of dealing having such regularity of observance in a place, vocation, or trade as to justify an expectation that it will be observed with respect to the transaction in question. This evidence is admissible even if the contract is fully integrated, as long as it does not contradict an express term of the contract.

Question 9

You are representing a client who purchased a used car from a dealership. The client signed a standard purchase agreement that contained a merger clause and a conspicuous clause stating the car was sold 'AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS.' Your client now tells you that before he signed the agreement, the salesperson assured him, 'This car is in perfect mechanical condition and has a brand-new transmission.' In reality, the transmission failed one week after purchase. Your client wants to sue the dealership.

On what grounds would evidence of the salesperson's statement most likely be admissible, despite the parol evidence rule and the 'AS IS' clause? Select one.

To prove a condition precedent to the formation of the contract was not met.
To establish a collateral agreement that existed alongside the main purchase contract.
To show that the client was fraudulently induced into entering the contract. (correct answer)
To clarify an ambiguous term in the fully integrated written agreement.

Explanation: A major exception to the parol evidence rule allows for the admission of evidence to show contract formation defects, such as fraud, duress, or mistake. If the salesperson knowingly made a false statement of material fact (the car's condition) to induce the client to sign the contract, this constitutes fraud in the inducement. Evidence of such fraud is admissible not to alter the contract's terms, but to show that the entire contract is voidable.

Question 10

An art gallery owner and a sculptor signed a detailed written agreement for the commission of a large outdoor statue. The sculptor insisted on a clause requiring a 50% non-refundable down payment, which the owner paid. At the time of signing, the parties orally agreed that the contract would not become legally binding unless and until the city's zoning board approved the statue's installation in a public park. The zoning board ultimately denied the permit. The owner demanded her down payment back, but the sculptor refused, citing the written contract.

If the owner sues to recover the down payment, may she introduce evidence of the oral agreement regarding zoning approval? Select one.

No, because the oral agreement contradicts the non-refundable down payment term in the writing.
No, because the detailed written agreement was a fully integrated contract that cannot be supplemented.
Yes, because the oral agreement was a subsequent modification of the written contract.
Yes, because the oral agreement established a condition precedent to the contract's formation. (correct answer)

Explanation: The parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of an oral condition precedent to the formation of the contract itself. The evidence is not being offered to contradict or supplement the terms of the agreement, but rather to prove that no enforceable agreement ever came into existence because the condition (zoning approval) failed to occur. This exception allows the owner to introduce the oral agreement to show the entire contract was void.

Question 11

On what grounds would evidence of the salesperson's statement most likely be admissible, despite the parol evidence rule and the 'AS IS' clause? Select one.

To prove a condition precedent to the formation of the contract was not met.
To establish a collateral agreement that existed alongside the main purchase contract.
To show that the client was fraudulently induced into entering the contract. (correct answer)
To clarify an ambiguous term in the fully integrated written agreement.

Question 12

A farmer and a grain cooperative entered into a written contract for the sale of 10,000 bushels of 'feed corn' at a set price. The contract included a merger clause. After delivery, the farmer discovered that the cooperative was using the corn to produce ethanol fuel, not for animal feed. The farmer brought suit, seeking to introduce evidence of conversations during negotiations where the cooperative's agent stated, 'We only buy corn for our livestock feed program.' The farmer argues this statement proves the term 'feed corn' had a specific, limited meaning.

Is the court likely to admit evidence of the agent's pre-contractual statement? Select one.

Yes, because the statement is offered to explain the meaning of an ambiguous term in the contract. (correct answer)
Yes, because the statement proves a fraudulent misrepresentation by the cooperative's agent.
No, because the merger clause indicates the writing is a total integration, barring all prior statements.
No, because the cooperative's intended use of the corn after purchase is not a term of the contract.

Explanation: Even when a contract is completely integrated, the parol evidence rule does not bar extrinsic evidence offered to interpret or explain an ambiguous term. The term 'feed corn' could be considered ambiguous as to whether it restricts the buyer's use or merely describes the grade of corn. The agent's statement is offered not to add or contradict a term, but to clarify the parties' understanding of an existing term. Therefore, it is a permissible use of parol evidence.

Question 13

If the owner sues to recover the down payment, may she introduce evidence of the oral agreement regarding zoning approval? Select one.

No, because the oral agreement contradicts the non-refundable down payment term in the writing.
No, because the detailed written agreement was a fully integrated contract that cannot be supplemented.
Yes, because the oral agreement was a subsequent modification of the written contract.
Yes, because the oral agreement established a condition precedent to the contract's formation. (correct answer)

Question 14

A landlord and a tenant executed a comprehensive written lease for a commercial storefront. The lease included a merger clause. The tenant now claims that, during the initial property tour, the landlord orally promised that the tenant could use the adjacent alleyway for outdoor seating. The written lease defines the 'leased premises' solely by the building's address and square footage and makes no mention of the alleyway. The city's regulations do not permit such use of the alleyway.

If the tenant sues the landlord to enforce the promise regarding the alleyway, is evidence of the landlord's oral statement likely to be admitted? Select one.

Yes, to show fraud, because the landlord promised something that was legally impossible to provide.
Yes, to interpret the ambiguous term 'leased premises' in the written agreement.
No, because the parol evidence rule bars evidence of a prior oral agreement that adds a significant term to a fully integrated lease. (correct answer)
No, because the landlord's statement was an unenforceable illusory promise.

Explanation: The parol evidence rule prevents a party to a completely integrated written contract (evidenced here by the comprehensive nature and merger clause) from introducing evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements to add to the terms of the writing. The promise to allow use of the alleyway is a significant additional term that is not in the lease. It would naturally be expected to be included in such a comprehensive commercial lease. Therefore, evidence of this promise is barred.

Question 15

What is the most likely reason a court would exclude evidence of the CEO's contemporaneous oral statement? Select one.

The statement is inadmissible hearsay not subject to any exception.
The statement would vary the terms of a completely integrated agreement. (correct answer)
The CEO, as an executive, lacked the actual authority to orally modify the negotiated agreement.
The agreement is governed by the UCC, which requires all modifications to be in writing.

Question 16

A homeowner and a roofing contractor entered into a detailed, three-page written agreement for the replacement of the homeowner's roof. The contract specified the use of 'Brand X architectural shingles' and a total price of $15,000. It also contained a clause stating, 'This document represents the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and agreements.' During pre-contract negotiations, the contractor had orally promised to also replace the gutters at no extra cost. The written contract makes no mention of gutters. After the roof was replaced, the homeowner demanded that the contractor replace the gutters. The contractor refused.

If the homeowner sues the contractor for breach of contract based on the failure to replace the gutters, is evidence of the contractor's oral promise likely to be admitted? Select one.

Yes, because the promise to replace the gutters was a collateral agreement supported by separate consideration.
Yes, because the oral promise was made to fraudulently induce the homeowner into signing the written contract.
No, because the written contract contains a merger clause, indicating it is a completely integrated agreement. (correct answer)
No, because the Statute of Frauds requires all terms of a contract for services over $500 to be in writing.

Explanation: The parol evidence rule bars the admission of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements that seek to vary, contradict, or add to the terms of a completely integrated written contract. The presence of the merger clause ('This document represents the entire agreement...') is strong evidence that the writing was intended by the parties to be a complete and exclusive statement of their agreement (a total integration). The oral promise to replace the gutters is an additional term that would be barred.

Question 17

A boutique owner contracted in writing with a furniture maker to purchase 'ten custom-built oak display tables' for $8,000. The written contract specified the dimensions and the price but was silent on the delivery date. When the boutique owner called to inquire about the delivery, the furniture maker stated it would be three months. The boutique owner claims that during the negotiations, they had orally agreed that the tables would be delivered within 30 days, as the boutique's grand opening was in five weeks. The furniture maker denies any such agreement.

In a breach of contract action, will the court likely admit the boutique owner's testimony about the 30-day delivery agreement? Select one.

No, because the testimony contradicts the UCC's gap-filler provision for a reasonable delivery time.
No, because the written contract is the final expression of the parties' agreement and cannot be altered by prior oral statements.
Yes, because the contract is for the sale of goods, and parol evidence is always admissible to explain or supplement UCC contracts.
Yes, because the written agreement is silent on the delivery date and is therefore only partially integrated. (correct answer)

Explanation: The parol evidence rule allows evidence of consistent additional terms to supplement a written agreement that is only partially integrated. An agreement is partially integrated if it is a final expression of the terms it contains but is not a complete and exclusive statement of all terms. Here, the writing is silent on a key term (delivery date), suggesting it is not a complete integration. The alleged oral agreement on a 30-day delivery supplements, rather than contradicts, the written terms, so it would likely be admissible.

Question 18

A manufacturer and a distributor signed a one-year exclusive distribution agreement. The written contract, which had a merger clause, gave the distributor the exclusive right to sell the manufacturer's products in California. The distributor now alleges that before signing, the manufacturer orally promised that if the distributor sold over one million units in the first year, the manufacturer would renew the contract for an additional five years. The distributor met the sales target, but the manufacturer refused to renew.

Is evidence of the manufacturer's oral promise of renewal likely admissible in the distributor's breach of contract action? Select one.

Yes, because the promise created a condition subsequent that modified the contract.
Yes, because the promise constitutes a separate, collateral agreement not intended to be included in the main writing.
No, because a promise concerning a five-year renewal is a significant term that parties would ordinarily include in the integrated writing. (correct answer)
No, because a contract for a five-year term must be in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, regardless of the parol evidence rule.

Explanation: The parol evidence rule bars evidence of prior oral agreements that add to a completely integrated contract. While there is an exception for collateral agreements, a court would likely find that a promise for a five-year renewal is so significant and closely related to the subject matter of the one-year distribution agreement that the parties would have naturally and normally included it in the final writing. Because it was not included, the parol evidence rule bars its admission.

Question 19

Is evidence of the oral agreement regarding rezoning likely to be admissible to excuse the developer's performance? Select one.

Yes, because it establishes a condition precedent to the developer's duty to perform under the contract.
Yes, because the doctrine of frustration of purpose applies when the land cannot be used as intended.
No, because all conditions related to contracts for the sale of land must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds.
No, because the agreement concerned a condition on performance, which is a term that would have been included in the integrated writing. (correct answer)

Question 20

In a dispute over the third month's payment, is evidence of the oral termination agreement admissible? Select one.

Yes, because the oral agreement was a subsequent agreement to rescind the contract. (correct answer)
No, because the oral agreement was an attempted accord and satisfaction that lacked new consideration.
No, because the merger clause prevents any modification to the contract unless it is in writing.
Yes, because the firm's poor performance made the contract ambiguous, allowing parol evidence.