In the parol evidence issue involving the jeweler and the goldsmith, the court admitted evidence about the earrings but not the rose-gold option. Which statement best reflects how extrinsic terms are handled under the written contract?

• A. Only the earring-related term is admissible.
• B. Only the rose-gold option is admissible.
• C. Both terms are admissible.
• D. Neither term is admissible.

Answer: (A)

When a contract is written and intended as a complete expression of the agreement, extrinsic terms may be admitted only if they do not contradict or alter the written terms. They can help explain or interpret what was agreed, but they cannot add new obligations or change existing ones.

In this case, evidence about the earrings fits within the scope of what was bargained for and helps illuminate what the contract contemplated about the earrings, so it can be admitted. The rose-gold option, however, would introduce a different term that could modify the bargain or add a new obligation not stated in the writing, which the parol evidence rule generally bars for a fully integrated contract.

So, only the term related to the earrings is admissible.