A written construction contract began with the following recital: "This Agreement, between Land, Inc. (hereafter called  Owner'), and Builder, Inc., and Boss, its President (hereafter called  Contractor'), witnesseth:" The signatures to the contract appeared in the following format: LAND, INC. By /s/ Oscar Land President BUILDER, INC. By /s/ George Mason Vice President /s/ Mary Boss, President Mary Boss Builder, Inc., became insolvent and defaulted. Land, Inc., sued Boss individually for the breach, and at the trial Boss proffered evidence from the pre-contract negotiations that only Builder, Inc., was to be legally responsible for performing the contract. If the court finds the contract to be completely integrated, is Boss's proffered evidence admissible? 
Yes, because the writing is ambiguous as to whether or not Boss was intended individually to be a contracting party.  Yes, because the evidence would contradict neither the recital nor the form of Boss's signature.  No, because the legal effect of Boss's signature cannot be altered by evidence of prior understandings.  No, because of the application of the "four corners" rule, under which the meaning of a completely integrated contract must be ascertained solely from its own terms. 
Question: A written construction contract began with the following recital: "This Agreement, between Land, Inc. (hereafter called  Owner'), and Builder, Inc., and Boss, its President (hereafter called  Contractor'), witnesseth:" The signatures to the contract appeared in the following format: LAND, INC. By /s/ Oscar Land President BUILDER, INC. By /s/ George Mason Vice President /s/ Mary Boss, President Mary Boss Builder, Inc., became insolvent and defaulted. Land, Inc., sued Boss individually for the breach, and at the trial Boss proffered evidence from the pre-contract negotiations that only Builder, Inc., was to be legally responsible for performing the contract. If the court finds the contract to be completely integrated, is Boss's proffered evidence admissible? 
A. Yes, because the writing is ambiguous as to whether or not Boss was intended individually to be a contracting party. 
B. Yes, because the evidence would contradict neither the recital nor the form of Boss's signature. 
C. No, because the legal effect of Boss's signature cannot be altered by evidence of prior understandings. 
D. No, because of the application of the "four corners" rule, under which the meaning of a completely integrated contract must be ascertained solely from its own terms. 
Answer: