$4.$ Barb and Jenn signed a written contract stating that Barb would pay

$$10,000\mathrm{.}00$ to Jenn in exchange for Jenn$$s promise to not make an offer on a

home Barb wanted to buy.

They had actually agreed to a payment of only

$$7,600\mathrm{.}00($not $$10,000\mathrm{.}00),$ but Jenn told Barb to sign the contract since $$we

know what our real agreement is$.$ Should a court permit Barb to testify that

the payment should have been only $$7,600\mathrm{.}00($not $$10,000\mathrm{.}00)$ based on

Jenn$$s statement?

A$.$

This testimony should be allowed because the difference between

$$10,000\mathrm{.}00$ and $$7,600\mathrm{.}00$ is not minimal.

B$.$

This testimony should be allowed because a payment of $$7,600\mathrm{.}00$

can be substantial performance of a $$10,000\mathrm{.}00$ debt.

C$.$

This testimony should not be allowed because the parol evidence

rule bars evidence that contradicts a written contract.

D$.$

This testimony should not be allowed because the Jenn$$s statement

violates the statute of frauds.