With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of their own independent investigation. The court then noted that even if competent evidence had shown that the lessor and plaintiffs had orally agreed on a cancellation contingency, the result would have remained the same for fraud cannot be predicated upon a promise or agreement to do something in the future. Shamberg, at 593; see also Douglas, at 116; Shanahan v. Schindler (1978), 63 Ill. App. 3d 82, 93, 379 N.E.2d 1307. In the context of an action for contract damages, the parol evidence rule has been held to bar, absent allegations of fraud or mistake, a claim for breach of an oral warranty of quality in sale of real estate. (See Rouse v. Brooks (1978), 66 Ill. App. 3d 107, 111, 383 N.E.2d 666; see also World Ins. Co. v. Smith (1975), 28 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1025, 329 N.E.2d 518 (<HOLDING>).) In Rouse, the court, while permitting an

A: holding that when a contract is partially parol and partially written parol evidence may prove the parol terms
B: holding if the language of a deed or other written instrument is clear and unambiguous the intention of the parties is gathered from the instrument it is what the grant or said and not what he intended to say
C: holding parol evidence inadmissible to vary a written instrument which is complete unambiguous valid and unaffected by fraud duress mistake or illegality
D: holding evidence that would contradict add to or subtract from or affect the construction of a valid complete and unambiguous written instrument is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule
C.