Neal v. Marrone

[239 NC Page 77] A contract not required to be in writing may be partly written and partly oral. However, where the parties have deliberately
put their engagements in writing in such terms as import a legal obligation free of uncertainty, it is presumed the writing
was intended by the parties to represent all their engagements as to the elements dealt with in the writing. Accordingly,
all prior and contemporaneous negotiations in respect to those elements are deemed merged in the written agreement. And the
rule is that, in the absence of fraud or mistake or allegation thereof, parol testimony of prior or contemporaneous negotiations
or conversations inconsistent with the writing, or which tend to substitute a new and different contract from the one evidenced
by the writing, is incompetent. See Whitehurst v. FCX Fruit and Vegetable Service, 224 N.C. 628, 32 S.E.2d 34; Insurance Co.
v. Morehead, 209 N.C. 174, 183 S.E. 606; Miller v. Farmers Federation, 192 N.C. 144, 134 S.E. 407; {PA} Page 78} Mfg. Co.
v. McPhail, 181 N.C. 205, 106 s.e. 672; Evans v. Freeman, 142 N.C. 61, 54 S.E. 847; Moffitt v. Maness, 102 N.C. 457, 9 S.E.
399; Ray v. Blackwell, 94 N.C. 10; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, Sec. 253; Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., Vol. IX,
Section 2430; Restatement of the Law, Contracts, Sections 237, 240, and 241; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, Sections 1099, 1100, 1137,
and 1138; 12 Am. Jur., Contracts, Sec. 235; 32 C.J.S., Evidence, Sec. 851.