Paragraph form would be amazing! the class is business law
Case: Mayo v North Carolina State University Facts: Dr. Robert Mayo was a tenured faculty member of the engineering department at North Carolina State University (NCSU), and director of the school's nuclear engineering program. In July, he informed his department chair, Dr. Paul Turinsky, that he was leaving NCSU effective September 1. In October, after Mayo had departed, the university's payroll coordinator informed him that he had been overpaid because for employees who worked 9 months but were paid over 12 months, the salary checks for July and August were prepayments for the period beginning that September. Because Mayo had not worked that September he was not entitled to the money. Mayo refused to refund the money. At an internal hearing on the University's claim for the money Turinsky and the university's payroll director, explained that the "pre-payment" rule was a basic part of every employee's contract. This rule was not stated in any of the documents that formed Mayo s contract and these officials used other evidence to establish the prepayment policy. Based on the additional evidence, the hearing ruled that NCSU was entitled to its money. Mayo appealed the agency's decision to court and the trial judge declared that he owed nothing because the university was not permitted to rely on parole evidence to establish its policy. The University appealed. Issue: What evidence could NCSU rely upon to establish its pre-payment rule? Holding: Judgment for Mayo affirmed. Excerpts from the court's opinion: Here, the language of the employment agreement is clear and unambiguous-petitioner is to be paid in twelve monthly installments for his service as a nine-month, academic year, tenured faculty member. Dr. Turinsky testified that petitioner's written employment agreement is comprised of terms found in petitioner's appointment letter, annual salary letter, and written policies adopted and amended by the UNC Board of Governors and the NCSU Board of Trustees. However, none of these documents forming the employment agreement set forth the compensation policies upon which NCSU bases its claim. The payroll director admitted at the agency hearing that the policies were "not stated anywhere specifically. Dr. Turinsky testified he did not know of the existence of the terms until September, after the petitioner left his employment with NCSU. The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict a written instrument intended to be the final integration of the transaction.
Question: What does the parol evidence state?