Question: In early January 2004 , representatives of MacDougall Corporation, makers of the famous "MacDougall Dog" hot dog and related convenience foods sold through thousands of owned and franchised "MacDougall's" restaurants, met with representatives of Time Management, Inc. ("TM"), a firm specializing in time-and-motion studies of labor intensive industries. After extensive negotiations, it was orally agreed that TM would redesign the food production area of MacDougall's restaurants, including modification of cooking equipment, if necessary, so that, using existing MacDougall's food products, savings in labor costs through reduction in restaurant cooking staffs would result. Lawyers for MacDougall's subsequently drafted a written agreement, sent it to TM, whose lawyers modified the draft, and returned the modified draft to MacDougall's. This modified writing, signed by both parties, stated in its entirety: Provided that at least 2,000 work-hours per restaurant are eliminated, MacDougall Corporation will pay to TM within 90 days of installation of new food production systems at MacDougall's restaurants in Richmond a first installment of $1$ million. Upon installation of new food processing systems nationwide, MacDougall Corporation will pay to TM a second and final installment of $ 1.5$ million. Nationwide installation must be completed by January 15,2005 . Any amendments to this agreement must be in writing signed by both parties. TM immediately began work on the restructuring of MacDougall's food processing methods. On September 5, 2004, a radical change in the layout of MacDougall's kitchen area and new personnel assignments had been designed, and TM demanded payment of the first installment payment of $ 1$ million. MacDougall Corporation refused, but negotiations conducted between the parties resulted in an oral agreement that MacDougall's would pay $ 750,000$ immediately and then the $ 1.5$ million second installment as originally agreed, after nationwide installation of the new system. The restructured food production system was installed and in operation in all Richmond MacDougall's restaurants on October 1, 2004. Subsequent audits revealed that the new system enabled MacDougall Corporation to eliminate 1,500 work-hours per restaurant, saving the corporation $ 90,000$ in labor costs for all Richmond restaurants. The new system required that MacDougall's increase the length of the famous "MacDougall Dog" by three centimeters and that the "Mother MacDougall Hot Apple Fritters" be made in a rectangular shape rather than the traditional round form. Nationwide installation of the new system in all MacDougall's restaurants was completed on January 30, 2005. The 1,500 work-hours per restaurant savings to MacDougall Corporation was projected at $ 1.8$ million per year. TM sent a certified letter to the chief executive officer of MacDougall Corporation requesting his certification that the new food production system was in place and operating as promised, and demanding the $ 1.5 \mathrm{mil}$ lion second installment. The CEO refused to so certify and refused to make any payment, noting in his reply letter that the system had not been installed by January 15,2005 , and that it did not use existing MacDougall's food products, as promised by TM. Assume for the purposes of this question only that TM brings an action for breach of contract against MacDougall Corporation seeking as damages $ 1.5$ million. MacDougall's attempts to introduce the testimony of its chief negotiator describing the oral agreement with TM representatives that the new food processing system would use existing MacDougall's food products. TM objects, arguing that the parol evidence rule bars admission of this testimony. Which of the following is the best argument supporting admission of the testimony?

Options:
A. The memorandum signed by the parties was not a complete integration of their agreement.
B. The parol evidence rule does not bar evidence interpreting a written agreement.
C. MacDougall Corporation detrimentally relied on the oral agreement in signing the memorandum.
D. The parol evidence rule does not exclude misrepresentations.
Answer: A