Novell's best argument to convince the judge that Canopy was not allowed to deduct expenses is the $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ since $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.$A$)$ statute of frauds B$)$ parol evidence rule C$)$ Click$-$on agreement rule D$)$ there were two contracts instead of one E$)$ Canopy has more money than Novell F$)$ the agreement to deduct expenses was oral