According to the Parol Evidence Rule, how are additional verbal terms treated if a written contract exists?

The Parol Evidence Rule is a principle in contract law that governs the admissibility of evidence outside the written contract. When a written contract is deemed to be a complete and final representation of the parties' agreement, additional verbal terms that were not included in the contract are typically not considered binding. This means that if parties have executed a written contract that appears comprehensive, any earlier negotiations, discussions, or verbal agreements that contradict the content of the written document are usually disregarded in the event of a dispute.

The rationale behind this rule is to maintain the integrity of the written contract, ensuring that it reflects the true agreement of the parties and to avoid any ambiguity that could arise from relying on oral statements made prior to signing the contract. Consequently, any verbal agreements made later or any prior verbal agreements would not generally hold legal weight if they are not incorporated into the written contract.

In contrast, other options imply various levels of acceptance or authority that additional verbal terms might have, which is not aligned with the core tenets of the Parol Evidence Rule. For instance, stating that they are always prioritized or replace prior written terms contradicts the notion that the written contract serves as the definitive agreement. Thus, the treatment of additional verbal terms as not generally binding