Which of the following offers of proof are inadmissible under the parol evidence rule when a written contract is intended as the complete agreement of the parties:
I.
Proof of the existence of a subsequent oral modification of the contract.
II.
Proof of the existence of a prior oral agreement that contradicts the written contract.
Choice "A" is correct. The parol evidence rule prohibits evidence of prior oral or written agreements that seek to contradict the terms of a fully integrated contract (i.e., one intended as the complete agreement). Thus, II is prohibited. However, the parol evidence rule does not prohibit introduction of subsequent agreements; thus, I is not prohibited.