Noncontradiction Is Enough
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 3 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Contracts3
Example wrong choices
14379_psalm_lightshow · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because under the four-corners approach the meaning of a completely integrated contract must be determined solely from the writing itself.
Why it's attractive
The word solely makes complete integration absolute and leaves no room for ambiguity.
Why it's wrong
The word solely makes complete integration absolute and leaves no room for ambiguity.
14379_psalm_lightshow · CONTRACTS · Choice BNo, because the legal effect of Lydia’s signature cannot be changed by evidence of prior understandings.
Why it's attractive
The choice treats the proffer as changing a clear legal effect, not as explaining ambiguous capacity.
Why it's wrong
The choice treats the proffer as changing a clear legal effect, not as explaining ambiguous capacity.
14379_psalm_lightshow · CONTRACTS · Choice DYes, because the evidence would not contradict either the recital or the way Lydia signed the contract.
Why it's attractive
No contradiction is not the deciding permission point once complete integration is given.
Why it's wrong
No contradiction is not the deciding permission point once complete integration is given.
14422_scripture_journal_arbitration · CONTRACTS · Choice AThe arbitration provision did not contradict any term in Martha's offer.
Why it's attractive
The offer's silence makes the clause additional, but this answer stops before the material-alteration question.
Why it's wrong
The offer's silence makes the clause additional, but this answer stops before the material-alteration question.
14422_scripture_journal_arbitration · CONTRACTS · Choice BPaul's acknowledgment containing the arbitration provision constituted a counteroffer that Martha accepted when she accepted delivery of the journals.
Why it's attractive
The acknowledgment repeated the deal and did not say acceptance was conditional on arbitration.
Why it's wrong
The acknowledgment repeated the deal and did not say acceptance was conditional on arbitration.
14422_scripture_journal_arbitration · CONTRACTS · Choice CArbitration would resolve the quality dispute more efficiently than court litigation.
Why it's attractive
Efficiency does not answer whether the clause became part of the contract.
Why it's wrong
Efficiency does not answer whether the clause became part of the contract.
20599_advent_handbell_integration · CONTRACTS · Choice BAdmit the oral promise because it does not conflict with any term in the signed writing.
Why it's attractive
The student sees no direct conflict and treats consistency as enough. The breaker is the complete-and-exclusive signal, which moves the question from contradiction to integration level.
Why it's wrong
It uses the partial-integration consistency frame when the stem gives a complete-and-exclusive writing.
Spot it next time
Circle complete and exclusive before evaluating consistency.
20599_advent_handbell_integration · CONTRACTS · Choice CExclude the signed writing because it left out the handbell cue sheet.
Why it's attractive
The student thinks an omitted promised feature damages the signed document. The breaker is that the offered evidence is the oral promise, not the signed writing.
Why it's wrong
It excludes the signed writing even though the offered evidence is the oral promise.
Spot it next time
Ask what evidence the proponent is offering.
20599_advent_handbell_integration · CONTRACTS · Choice DAdmit the oral promise because merger clauses affect only sales of goods.
Why it's attractive
The student recognizes UCC parol-evidence language and assumes merger clauses live only there. The breaker is the Gold Key: complete integration is also a common-law services-contract concept.
Why it's wrong
It falsely limits merger clauses to sales of goods.
Spot it next time
Use the Gold Key: complete integration is not goods-only.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →