In the same scenario, Jim now claims that before he signed the contract he and Diana agreed orally that at least half the comics would be Superman. Diana denies the conversation took place and argues that such evidence would violate the parol evidence rule.
How should the judge rule?
- A. For Diana, because the contract states that it is the complete and final agreement.
- A is correct. The oral conversation, even if true, may not overcome the contract's listing of the books because the written contract contains a merger clause stating that it is the complete expression of the parties' agreement. Jim may be able to allege the tort of fraud or misrepresentation, but then he will also have to prove the elements of those claims.
- B. For Jim, because he is presenting evidence that is an exception to the parol evidence rule.
- Sorry, but that's not the correct answer. Please select another.