17. Is the court likely to admit evidence concerning the parties' oral agreement that the work would be completed in 60 days?

The parol evidence rule excludes evidence of earlier written or oral agreements that contradict or add to the terms of the integrated writing. If a writing is completely integrated (i.e., intended to be the final expression of an agreement between the parties), previous oral or written terms may not come in to contradict or supplement it. If a written agreement is only partially integrated (i.e., a writing the parties intended to be final, but doesn't express the full understandings of the parties) extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict the written agreement are barred. With partial integration, however, additional terms or agreements that supplement the written agreement are admissible.

D is correct. Here, the writing is merely partially integrated because the facts show that writing was not intended to be the full expression of the agreement (as evidenced by the fact that the contract did not specify a time of completion and the fact that there was no merger clause). Because the writing was a partially integrated writing, the parol evidence rule would bar any contradicting terms but would allow terms that merely supplement the written agreement. Since the writing was silent as to when the work was to be completed, the parol evidence rule would allow the admission of evidence of the oral agreement in order to supplement the written agreement. Since a partial integration may be supplemented (but not contradicted) to prove consistent additional terms, oral evidence would provide additional terms that do not contradict the original writing and would, therefore, be admissible.

A is incorrect. As discussed above, the parol evidence rule excludes evidence of earlier or contemporaneous written or oral agreements that contradict the terms of the integrated writing. In this case, because the written agreement lacked a merger clause, it is a partial integration, meaning the court may consider other evidence that supplements the written agreement.

B is incorrect. Although the oral expressions were made contemporaneously with the writing, it does not vary nor contradict the terms of the writing. The parol evidence rule excludes evidence of earlier or contemporaneous written or oral agreements that contradict the terms of the integrated writing. Because the contract completion term was not included in the agreement, the completion term is not merely a part of the negotiation. As such, this answer is incorrect and evidence of the oral agreement is admissible to supplement the partially integrated written agreement.

C is incorrect. Here, the issue is not that the contract is ambiguous. Rather, the admissibility of the evidence hinges on the fact that this term was completely missing from the partially integrated contract. Because the term was missing from the written agreement, evidence of the oral agreement to complete the work within 60 days is admissible to supplement the contract.