With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". rights. The new franchise agreement between Scott and the defendants did not mention any special privileges that Scott would enjoy as a McDonald’s operator, or that Scott would be treated in any particular way with respect to expansion. The release and disclaimer clauses signed by Scott Schubot, destroy plaintiffs’ claims of justifiable reliance on oral representations that occurred before the new franchise agreement between Scott and Mc-Donalds was entered into. Clauses releasing parties and disclaiming liabilities, such as these involved in the instant litigation, overcome any oral representations not contained in the written franchise agreement. Carlock v. Pillsbury Co., 719 F.Supp. 791, 829 (D.Minn.1989); Durkee v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 676 F.Supp. 189, 193 (W.D.Wis.1987) (<HOLDING>) completely the obligations and promises of

A: holding that plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on an oral representation that the atwill provision of his employment contract did not apply to him when he entered into the contract that expressly contradicted the oral representations
B: holding that a person could not reasonably rely on oral representations that contradict a written document
C: holding that enforcement of alleged oral representations made prior to execution of written contract was barred by the parol evidence rule and the explicit integration clause
D: holding that it is unreasonable for plaintiffs to rely on oral representations made before a contract when the contract contained a clause which expressed
D.