Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): they never would have entered into the Development Agreement. 5 . The merger or integration clause in KFC Corp. v. Darsam Corp. stated that: This agreement supersedes any an all other oral or written agreements between the parties hereto with respect to the outlet which is the subject matter hereof and contains all the covenants and agreements between the said parties with respect to said matter. Franchisee acknowledges that neither KFC not anyone on behalf of KFC has made any representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, respecting the subject matter of this agreement or respecting any other subject matter, which are not embodies herein. 543 F.Supp. at 224. 6 . See also Vision Graphics, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours, 41 F.Supp.2d 93, 98 (D.Mass.1999) (<HOLDING>); AAR Int'l, Inc. v. Vacances Heliades S.A., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the parol evidence rule presumes finality with respect to the written terms of the agreement only and does not prevent consideration of parol evidence concerning the duration of contract (B) holding that it is unreasonable for plaintiffs to rely on oral representations made before a contract when the contract contained a clause which expressed (C) holding that when a contract is partially parol and partially written parol evidence may prove the parol terms (D) holding that enforcement of alleged oral representations made prior to execution of written contract was barred by the parol evidence rule and the explicit integration clause (E) holding that the parol evidence rule did not bar introduction of evidence of a subsequent oral contract concerning the brokers right to a commission and modifying the written agreement
Output (English): holding that the parol evidence rule did not bar introduction of evidence of a subsequent oral contract concerning the brokers right to a commission and modifying the written agreement