Morris hired Erica's Restaurant to host a dinner party of 20 people for a total of $400.To formalize their understanding, Morris and Erica signed a valid, written contract which stated all the terms of their dinner agreement.Additionally, their written contract contained a merger clause, making it acompletely integrated agreement.

The written contract only addressed the details of the dinner but did not make mention of dessert.At the time the contract was formed Erica and Morris also had a discussion about dessert.Morris claims that during this conversation, Erica orally agreed to add desert to the menu for all 20 guests for an extra $100.Erica, however, denies that she ever made any such agreement with Morris.

If Morris sought to enforce Erica's promise to add dessert for an extra $100 what would the likely result be?

a)Since the contract had a merger clause, Morris would be barred from introducing evidence of their oral agreement to add dessert.

b)The agreement to add dessert for $100 would be unenforceable under the statute of frauds because it would make the total contract $500.

c)The parol evidence rule would not apply and Morris would be allowed to introduce evidence of their oral agreement to add desert as an additional term of their agreement.

d)Morris would be able to enforce the promise to add dessert but he would be required to pay the reasonable value of the dessert.