Buyer and Seller are parties to a contract calling for delivery of goods on "June 1." This is the sixth contract between Buyer and Seller that dealt with the same subject matter over the years. In each of the six previous contracts, delivery was supposed to be on "the first" of the month under the express terms of the contract, but in each case, Seller made the deliveries on the tenth of the month in question. In all cases, such deliveries were accepted and paid for without complaint by the Seller. Delivery under the new contract took place on June 10. However, it was rejected for late tender by the Buyer, and Seller brought suit.

Buyer moves for summary judgment stating that the contract clearly shows that delivery was due June 1, and it was admitted that the delivery was not made until June 10. In response to Seller's attempt to show deliveries under previous contracts were made and accepted on the tenth of the month despite the first of the month term ("Previous Evidence"), Buyer invokes the parol evidence rule. At a hearing, the judge rules that the contract is completely integrated.

In a jurisdiction that follows the UCC, which of the following is the most accurate statement?

(A) The Previous Evidence may not be introduced at trial.

(B) The Previous Evidence may only be introduced at trial if the court found it to be a "consistent additional term."

(C) The Previous Evidence may be introduced at trial if the court determines that the parties would not certainly have included a ten-day extension of time for delivery in their written agreement had they, in fact, agreed to such a term.

(D)The Previous Evidence would be admissible if the court determines it is a course of dealing.