Which option is NOT an exception to the parole evidence rule?

The correct choice indicates a fundamental aspect of the parole evidence rule, which dictates that when parties have a clear and complete written contract, any prior or contemporaneous oral or written statements that contradict or modify that contract are typically not admissible in court. The rule aims to preserve the integrity of written agreements by preventing parties from introducing extrinsic evidence that could alter the established terms of a clear contract.

In this context, the assertion that parole evidence can generally be introduced when the contract is clear is fundamentally at odds with the principles of the parole evidence rule. A clear contract should stand on its own merits, and bringing in parole evidence under such circumstances is contrary to the rule's purpose of upholding the finality of written agreements. Therefore, this choice accurately identifies a statement that does not align with established legal principles regarding the admissibility of parole evidence.

The other options illustrate instances where exceptions to the parole evidence rule apply. Contracts that have been modified allow for the introduction of subsequent evidence to show those changes. Similarly, when terms in a contract are ambiguous, parole evidence can help clarify those meanings. Lastly, when proving fraud, extrinsic evidence is often permitted as the integrity of consent is at stake. Thus, the correct choice reflects a misunderstanding of when the