登录之后可查看解析

B is corrent because the parol evidence rule states that a written agreement intended by the parties to be final and complete is binding on the parties and may not be contradicted by proof of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements. Subsequent modifications (i.e., a later oral agreement), however, may be proven provided the Statute of Frauds, if applicable, is met. In this case, the Statute of Frauds is of no concern since the sale of the van is not for $500 or more. Moreover, under the UCC, the modification of an existing contract does not require additional consideration. Accordingly, Super’s subsequent oral warranty is valid and enforceable.
A is incorrect because the parol evidence rule states that a written agreement intended by the parties to be final and complete is binding on the parties and may not be contradicted by proof of prior or contemporaneous oral agreements. However, in this situation, a subsequent modification (i.e., a later oral agreement) was made and will be enforceable. The parol evidence rule does not prohibit the presentation of subsequent agreements; only prior or contemporaneous agreements.
C is incorrect because under the UCC a contract for the sale of goods may be modified orally or in writing without consideration if it is done in good faith. In this situation, Super’s oral warranty will not be invalid due to lack of consideration because no consideration was needed for this modification.
D is incorrect because the Statute of Frauds is of no concern since the sale of the van is for $350. The subsequent oral warranty would only be subject to the Statute of Frauds if the van sold for $500 or more.