Sam and John discuss the sale of John's house in Kirksville. In their discussions, Sam says the deal must include John's premium Weber grill that John has just purchased. John's old regular Weber grill was placed in his storage shed. John says "okay" and a 10 page real estate contract is prepared that includes all the important terms of the agreement and both Sam and John sign the agreement. The written agreement states "Weber grill to be included in the sale of the real estate". The transaction is closed and Sam takes possession of the home, but finds that John has taken the new premium Weber grill and left the old one. When Sam confronts John about the problem, John says "too bad, I will win because of the parol evidence rule". Is John correct and why or why not?

	A.	John will win because of the statute of frauds and not because of the parol evidence rule.
	B.	Sam will win because a contract must be at least 20 pages to be a fully integrated contract and for the parol evidence rule to apply.
	C.	John will win because the parol evidence rule provides that oral statements made prior to the creation of a fully integrated written contract cannot be admitted into court.
	D.	Sam will win because the parol evidence rule doesn't bar oral statements made that explain ambiguous terms.