In 1991, Fancy Marketplace bought an office building from Karl Marx pursuant to a written contract. 17 years later fancy discovers that Karl Marx made false representations about the structural sufficiency of the foundation during the negotiations for the building. Repairs are needed which will exceed the current value of the building. Fancy by exercise of reasonable diligence could have discovered the foundation defects within the first 12 years after it bought the building. Fancy now sues marks claiming fraud in the inducement to the contract. Neither party has a signed copy of the contract. Which of the following statements is true? Fancy will be able to rescind the contract because both parties did not sign it O The statute of limitations will likely prevent Fancy from prevailing because of the length of time that has passed The parol evidence rule will prevent the admission into evidence of proof concerning Fancies fraud allegations O Fancy must prove the alleged misrepresentations were part of the written contract because the contract involve real estate O Marx will prevail if he can show it was an innocent mistake on his part