**Case Study: Contract Dispute Over Laptop Sale****Scenario:**Ramona Smith spilled orange juice on her computer two days before her term paper was due. Desperate for a new laptop, she found one online that met her needs. Ramona emailed the seller, Effie Frost, expressing interest in purchasing the laptop. Effie replied, stating she would sell the laptop to Ramona for $300.An hour later, Ramona and Effie formalized their transaction with a written agreement: "I, Effie Frost, agree to sell my laptop computer to Ramona Smith for Four Hundred Dollars and zero cents. This is the entirety of the agreement. This agreement supersedes any and all other agreements made by the seller and the buyer."Ramona claims she should only pay $300, referencing the initial email in which Effie quoted $300 as the laptop's price. Ramona possesses this email as proof of the initial price agreement.**Question:**What legal concept could be used to enforce the contract for $400?- Condition Precedent- The Parol Evidence Rule- Vesting- Privity of Contract- Statute of Frauds**Explanation:**The key factor to consider is the application of the Parol Evidence Rule, which prevents parties from presenting evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict a written contract meant to be the final expression of the parties' agreement. In this scenario, the written agreement for $400 may supersede the earlier quoted price of $300.

The legal framework that establishes and governs agreements between parties and guarantees the…

Ramona Smith spilled orange juice on her computer two days before her term paper was due. Ramona desperately needed a new laptop, so she went online and found a laptop that fit her needs. She emailed the seller, Effie Frost, expressing her desire to purchase the laptop. Effie emailed Ramona back and said that she (Effie) would sell Effie's laptop to Ramona for $300. An hour later, Ramona and Effie signed the following agreement: "I, Effie Frost, agree to sell my laptop computer to Ramona Smith for Four Hundred Dollars and zero cents. This is the entirety of the agreement. This agreement supersedes any and all other agreements made by the seller and the buyer." Ramona now claims that she should only pay $300 for the laptop because during that initial email exchange with Effie, Effie told Ramona that $300 was the price of the laptop, and she has the email exchange as evidence of the price quote of $300. What legal concept could be used to enforce the contract for $400? O Condition Precedent O The Parol Evidence Rule O Vesting O Privity of Contract O Statute of Frauds

Ramona Smith spilled orange juice on her computer two days before her term paper was due. Ramona desperately needed a new laptop, so she went online and found a laptop that fit her needs. She emailed the seller, Effie Frost, expressing her desire to purchase the laptop. Effie emailed Ramona back and said that she (Effie) would sell Effie's laptop to Ramona for $300. An hour later, Ramona and Effie signed the following agreement: "I, Effie Frost, agree to sell my laptop computer to Ramona Smith for Four Hundred Dollars and zero cents. This is the entirety of the agreement. This agreement supersedes any and all other agreements made by the seller and the buyer." Ramona now claims that she should only pay $300 for the laptop because during that initial email exchange with Effie, Effie told Ramona that $300 was the price of the laptop, and she has the email exchange as evidence of the price quote of $300. What legal concept could be used to enforce the contract for $400? O Condition Precedent O The Parol Evidence Rule O Vesting O Privity of Contract O Statute of Frauds