In this contract dispute, Fran made a contract with the seller of a house on Maple Drive, which is located in Riverside County. The Contract states that Fran is to submit to a mortgage for the amount of $545,000, in exchange for a title to the house at 12342 Maple Drive. The seller of the property gave a title as a "quitclaim deed" which essentially means that the title does not have warranties that others cannot make claims to the property. Fran did not know what a "quit claim" deed was and overlooked this detail in the purchase of her house. Fran and the seller now have a dispute which had to be resolved in court.

Fran's argument states that the contract specifically states there should be the title to the property, which means that Fran should have free and clear title, especially for the amount of the home at a full market price. The seller states that Fran did not specify what kind of title can be given at that price, and as such does not have to specify what kind of title needs to be given to the buyer. I know that it is the convention that buyers should be able to purchase a home free and clear of encumbrances incomplete title called Fee Simple Absolute, but the contract did not specify this requirement.

So as a lawyer with a cursory knowledge of contract law, please answer the following questions:

1. Can this contract be valid in the face of so many details left out in the exchange between Fran and the Seller? Would this be analyzed under the common law or the UCC?

2. Was there consideration in the formation of this contract?

3. Can Fran bring in extrinsic evidence, or "parol evidence" to rebut the formation of a valid contract? Would it be fair to bring in the beliefs of the two parties in agreeing to the terms of this contract?