Lake House

Multiple Choice

Lake House.Harry has two houses,a house on the lake and a house in town.Rebecca wants to buy the house on the lake.Harry and Rebecca orally agree that Rebecca will buy the house on the lake for $300,000.Harry hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Rebecca for $300,000.Harry signs the top of the document.Rebecca does not sign at all.No merger clause is included in the contract.Harry backs out of the contract,and Rebecca sues him.He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and also because Rebecca did not sign at all.He also tells the judge that,at any rate,the agreement referred to the house in town,not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule,he had the right to identify the correct house.Which of the following is true regarding Harry's assertion that under the parol evidence rule he alone had the right to identify the house referenced in the contract?

A) Harry is correct.
B) Harry is incorrect because under the parol evidence rule,Rebecca,as the buyer,would be allowed to identify the subject matter in the event of a discrepancy.
C) Harry is incorrect because under the parol evidence rule,the judge would likely allow oral evidence regarding the house at issue in order to clarify an ambiguity.
D) Harry is incorrect because the parol evidence rule would not apply in situations involving an ambiguity.
E) Harry is incorrect because the parol evidence rule would not apply in the absence of a merger clause.