Assume that Jack, Hal, and Sophia enter into a written contract for the sale of the restaurant, including the building and all of its contents. Jack orally tells Hal and Sophia that he wants to keep a certain a mounted fish that is hanging on the wall of the restaurant. The contract contains an integration clause. Jack later goes to get the fish, but Hal and Sophia claim that it was part of the sale. Jack sues. What is the likely result?A. Jack cannot bring in the evidence of the oral agreement because of the parol evidence rule.
B. Jack will automatically win the case based on the parol evidence rule.
C. Jack could likely rescind the entire contract if Hal and Sophia do not turn over the fish.
D. Jack can bring in the evidence of the oral agreement because of the parol evidence rule.

A. Jack cannot bring in the evidence of the oral agreement because of the Parol Evidence Rule.

Explanation:

The Parol Evidence rule is a rule in the Anglo-American common law that governs or determines the types or kinds of evidence that parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract.

The rule also prevents introduction of further evidences by a party after a final written document or agreement has been reached. Things such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract. The rule states that "extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract". The term " patrol" refers to "word of mouth" hence it is referred to oral pleadings in a court case.

Therefore from the question, Jack cannot bring in evidence of oral agreement into the court for evaluation because of Patrol Evidence Rule.

3rd the reason why is because of management and leadership