George (plaintiff) agreed to purchase jewelry from Davoli (defendant) for $500. According to their written memorandum of sale, George could return the jewelry for a refund of $440 if it was not acceptable to him. The memorandum did not specify a time period in which the jewelry needed to be returned. After receiving the jewelry and deciding not to keep it, George sought to return it for a refund on the following Wednesday. Davoli refused to accept it and George sued. Davoli testified at trial that at the time of the written memorandum, the parties orally agreed that George would have until the following Monday to return the jewelry for a refund. George’s attempt to return the jewelry on the following Wednesday, therefore, was two days too late. After presentation of the evidence at trial, the court considered whether introduction of the oral agreement was permissible under the parol evidence rule.