Catherine and Jacob have a written contract to buy and sell "100 cases of widgets." The 100 cases is a typo, so after signing the contract they orally agree to modify the contract to "1,000 cases of widgets." If later the parties are in litigation concerning the amount of widgets involved in the contract, can evidence of the oral change be introduced into evidence?

A. No, since this violates the best evidence rule.
B. No, since this violates the parol evidence rule.
C. Yes, since this is an exception to the parol evidence rule.
D. Yes, since both signed the original contract.

C. Yes, since this is an exception to the parol evidence rule

Explanation:

Base on the scenario been described in the question, the oral change can be introduced as the evidence, because the orally signed the contract. Since this is an only an exception to the parol evidence rule, which means , the oral change can be introduced as an evidence.

Option C is correct.

Explanation:

The parol evidence rule is a law that determines what kinds of evidence the parties involved in a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine what is contained in a contract.

The objective of the parol evidence rule is to prohibit the involved parties from introducing any evidence of prior oral agreements that had taken place before or during the time that the agreement was in the process of being reduced to its final form in order to alter the terms of the existing contract.

However, there are exceptions where the patrol evidence rule cannot apply, in a situation whereby it can be proven that there was an error in the contract (in this case 100 instead of 1,000), the rule will not apply. If it can also be proven that the contract was part written and part oral, then the patrol evidence rule will not apply.

answer; i believe that the correct answer is ( owners investment)