Jane and Dick entered into another agreement for Dick to sell Jane a parcel of real property. This time, they entered into a written agreement that was signed by both Jane and Dick. There was a merger clause in the contract that provided that the written agreement is the complete integration of the parties' agreement, and no other agreement regarding the sale of the property would be valid unless contained in a written document signed by both Jane and Dick. Before the signing of the agreement, Dick had agreed to come to the house each week for a year to clean the pool and take care of the pool equipment. That agreement was not included in the written agreement for the sale of the house. After the house was sold to Jane, Dick refused to clean the pool or take care of the pool equipment. Jane sued Dick. During the trial, Jane sought to introduce evidence of their oral agreement. Dick's attorney objected to the introduction of this evidence. What was the basis of Dick's attorney's objection, and how should the judge rule on this objection and why?