Paul leased a farm from Michael. The lease contained this uncompleted provision: “Lessor does hereby rent and lease to the Lessee the following described property for a term commencing on the ___ day of ____, 20___, and ending on the ___ day of ____, 20___.” Michael later sued to regain possession of the property. Paul wanted to prove with an oral agreement that the lease was to run as long as a note, but the maturity date of the note had not been known when the lease was signed. Should the evidence regarding the oral agreement be admitted to clarify the term of the written contract (the lease)?

a. No, because the contract pertains to an interest in land, which must be in writing.

b. No, because the oral agreement was made prior to the written agreement.

c. Yes, because the lease was clearly incomplete.

d. Yes, because the mirror image rule allows for its admission.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Yes because the lease was clearly incomplete In the given scenario oral evidence would be a... View the full answer