In the Jenkins V

In the Jenkins v.Eckerd Corporation case, the court held that:

A) the trial court erroneously concluded that the lease unambiguously gave the lessee the option to cancel the lease.
B) although the lease was unambiguous when read literally, the lease was not clear and complete with regard to the operation of the lease should the lease be assigned.Therefore, parol evidence should be admitted.
C) extrinsic evidence could not be admitted because the lease was an integrated agreement complete in all essential terms and the lease contained no latent or patent ambiguity.
D) the existence of a merger or integration clause establishes per se that a writing is totally integrated.