An agreement between Bert and Ernie for the lease of Ernie's

apartment contains a provision that no "long$-$term" guests are

allowed, but "long$-$term" is never defined in the contract. Right

before signing the lease, Bert tells Ernie that his cousin from Latvia

comes every summer and stays with Bert for a month. Ernie says

"that's fine." Bert goes ahead and signs the lease as written. Later,

when Bert's cousin comes and stays for two weeks, Ernie gives

Bert notice of breach and sues Bert to terminate the lease. During

the subsequent court case, Bert attempts to testify about the

conversation he had with Ernie before signing the lease. What

result?

The court will not allow Bert to testify about the conversation because

the contract was not changed to include this provision before Bert

signed it$.$

The court will allow Bert to testify because under these facts, "long

term" is ambiguous.

Courts never allow evidence about a prior oral conversation when a

written contract exists.

None of the above.