If a contract is fully integrated and a prior oral condition is offered to prove a condition precedent, which of the following is most likely true?

• A. The condition will automatically negate the contract.
• B. The condition may be admitted to prove a condition precedent despite integration.
• C. The condition will be ignored by the court.
• D. The condition will be admitted as a new independent contract.

Answer: (B)

When a contract is fully integrated, the writing is treated as the complete statement of the agreement, and evidence of prior oral terms is usually barred to add or modify what's in the writing. But there’s an important exception: evidence of a condition precedent to formation can be admitted even with integration. That’s because this kind of evidence speaks to whether the contract ever came into existence, not to changing the contract’s terms after it exists. If the prior oral condition occurred, the contract formed; if it didn’t, there may be no contract at all. So the offered prior oral condition can be admitted to prove a condition precedent to formation, despite integration. The other outcomes—that the contract is automatically negated, ignored, or treated as a separate new contract—don’t fit with how the formation-based exception to the Parol Evidence Rule works.