2. The trial court will probably rule that the evidence proffered by the retailer is

The parol evidence rule bars parties to a written contract from presenting «extrinsic» evidence of terms in a contract that contradicts, modifies, or varies the terms of a written agreement when that written agreement is considered complete and finalized. A completely integrated agreement is an unambiguous written agreement that leaves no doubt that the parties intended it to be the final contract, and expresses the parties' full and exclusive agreement on a matter. The parol evidence rule, however, does not bar extrinsic evidence offered to aid in the interpretation of existing terms.

Under § 2-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), contract terms that are intended by the parties to be the final expression of their agreement can't be contradicted by evidence of any previous agreement or contemporaneous oral agreement but may be explained or supplemented by evidence of (i) course of performance; (ii) course of dealing; and (iii) trade usage. Course-of-performance is a pattern in the performance of the contract. If a contract involves repeated occasions for performance by either party, and the other party knows of the nature of the performance and has an opportunity to object to such performance, any course of performance accepted or acquiesced to without objection is relevant to the meaning of the agreement. (UCC § 1-303(a)). Evidence of course-of-performance can be introduced to explain or supplement a written contract for the sale of goods, as long as the evidence doesn't expressly negate the express terms in the written contract.

D is correct. As discussed above, the parol evidence rule bars the introduction of extrinsic evidence of oral agreements made prior to, or simultaneous to, the adoption of a final written agreement. Evidence of course-of-performance, however, can be introduced as evidence to explain or supplement a final written agreement for the sale of goods, so long as the evidence doesn't expressly negate the express terms in the written contract. In this case, the final written agreement between the manufacturer and the retailer is silent on the issue of returning undefective radios for credit. Accordingly, this answer choice is correct, and evidence of the parties' performance during the first three years of the agreement on this issue is admissible to interpret the writing.

A is incorrect. The parol evidence rule bars admission of extrinsic evidence that contradicts a final written agreement. contract terms that are intended by the parties to be the final may be explained or supplemented by evidence of course-of-performance as long as the evidence doesn't expressly negate the express terms in the written contract. Here, the written agreement is silent as to the return of the undefective radios for credit. As such, evidence of the parties' course of performance is admissible to supplement the written agreement.

B is incorrect. This answer choice correctly states the law but misapplies the facts. Here, the express terms of the contract are silent on the issue of returning undefective radios. Because the parties' course of performance is not inconsistent with express terms of the agreement (considering the express terms are silent), evidence of course-of-performance is admissible to explain the written agreement.

C is incorrect. The Statute of Frauds is a statute requiring certain contracts to be in writing and signed by the parties bound by the contract. The purpose is to prevent fraud. The statute of Frauds applies to certain types of contracts, for instance, contracts for the sale of goods over $500. In this case, however, the Statute of Frauds is not relevant to the issue of contract interpretation.