In the Case in the Text,Yung-Kai Lu V

In the case in the text,Yung-Kai Lu v.Univ.of Utah,the court held that:

A) Lu's claim satisfied the statute of frauds but under Utah's parol evidence rule,he could not testify to any pre-contract verbal agreement.
B) Lu's claim satisfied the statute of frauds and under Utah's parol evidence rule,he could testify to any pre-contract verbal agreement.
C) Lu's claim was barred by the statute of frauds and under Utah's parol evidence rule,he could not testify to any pre-contract verbal agreement.
D) Lu's claim was barred by the statute of frauds and under Utah's parol evidence rule,he could testify to any pre-contract verbal agreement.