Answer this question in few sentences, please don't write a long answer as I will give you thumps down. Thanks

Answer this question using the reading below. your answer should be short and effective (one paragraph should be fine), and type your answers please!!

Mayo v. North Carolina State University

Question: You Be the Judge: May NCSU rely on parol evidence to enforce its prepayment rule?

Facts: Dr. Robert Mayo was a tenured engineering professor at North Carolina State University (NCSU). In July, he informed his department chair, Dr. Paul Turinsky, that he was leaving NCSU effective September 1. Turinsky accepted the resignation. In October, after Mayo had departed, Phyllis Jennette, the universitys payroll coordinator, informed Mayo that he had been overpaid. She explained that for employees who worked 9 months but were paid over 12 months, the salary checks for July and August were in fact prepayments for the period beginning that September. Because Mayo had not worked after September 1, the checks for July and August were overpayment. When he refused to refund the money, NCSU sued. The first step was a hearing before an administrative agency. At the hearing, Turinsky and Brian Simet, the universitys payroll director, explained that the prepayment rule was a basic part of every employees contract. However, both acknowledged that the prepayment rule was not included in any of the documents that formed Mayos contract, including his appointment letter, annual salary letter, and policies adopted by the universitys trustees. The university officials used other evidence, outside the written documents, to establish the prepayment policy. Based on the additional evidence, the agency ruled that NCSU was entitled to its money. However, Mayo appealed to court, and the trial judge declared that he owed nothing, ruling that the university was not permitted to rely on parol evidence to establish its policy. NCSU appealed.

Argument for Mayo: Your honors, what is the point of having a contract if a court can enforce random, additional terms from other policies? The terms of Dr. Mayos employment are clearly stated in his appointment letter, his annual salary letter, and the written Faculty Policies. None of these documents detail this supposed prepayment rule. Parol evidence that changes, adds to, or contradicts written terms should not be introduced to explain the terms of an agreement that are otherwise crystal clear.

Argument for NCSU: Your honors, the parol evidence here is not adding new terms to Dr. Mayos contract, it is simply clarifying the terms that are there. It is well known that summer salary payments are prepayments for the upcoming academic year. When a 9-month employee who is paid on a 12-month basis leaves before the fall semester, that person must return the amount of overpayment. This understanding formed part of the contract, regardless of whether it was in writing. Dr. Mayo took something that was not his and cannot rely on the silence of the written contract to justify his actions