Vue's Accounting, S$.$C$.$ and Burke Law Office make a contract for tax law advising services. The contract is in written form and is signed by both parties. Later, there is a lawsuit based on a disagreement over the terms of the contract. Burke claims that there were additional agreements between the parties that were not in the contract, but that were part of the deal. The lawyers representing Vue's argue successfully that the written terms of the contract cannot be contradicted by oral agreements that were not included in the actual signed document. The argument by Vue's attorneys is based on:

Group of answer choices

statute of frauds

mens rea

condition precedent

parol evidence rule