8. If the court finds the contract to be completely integrated, is Boss's proffered evidence admissible?

The parol evidence rule bars parties to a written contract from presenting «extrinsic» evidence of terms in a contract that would contradict, modify, or vary 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. Even if a court finds a written agreement to be completely integrated, outside evidence may be allowed to clarify terms in a contract when a term's meaning is ambiguous. The parol evidence rule does not bar extrinsic evidence offered to aid in the interpretation of existing terms.

A is correct. The extrinsic evidence proffered in this instance is meant to clarify an ambiguous fact — whether or not Boss was intended individually to be a contracting party. Even if a court finds the agreement to be completely integrated, a court may allow this extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity and aid in the interpretation of whether Boss signed the construction contract on her own behalf or as representative of Builder. This evidence is not being proffered to contradict or supplement the written agreement. As such, even if a court finds the written agreement is completely integrated, this proffered evidence is admissible because the writing is ambiguous as to whether or not Boss was individually intended to be a contracting party.

B is incorrect. As discussed above, the parol evidence rule bars any evidence contradicting or supplementing terms of a completely integrated agreement. However, there is an exception for evidence that clarifies ambiguous terms. As such, if the agreement were completely integrated, the evidence would be barred under the parol evidence rule regardless of whether there was a contradiction between the statement and the final writing.

C is incorrect. The evidence being proffered is not offered to alter the legal effect of the signature. Rather, it is offered to clarify an ambiguity: whether Boss signed the agreement in an individual capacity.

D is incorrect. The term «four corners» refers to the four corners of the written agreement. The «four corners» rule stipulates that if a written agreement, on its face, appears complete, no outside evidence may be used to challenge it. If there is evidence that exists outside of the four corners of the agreement, they are inadmissible if they contradict the terms of the written contract. Here, however, the proffered evidence is not evidence found outside of the «four corners» of the written agreement, nor is it contradicting any written term. As such, the «four corners» rule will not bar the introduction of extrinsic evidence to interpret an ambiguity in the writing.