Under the Second Restatement, can an extrinsic term that would naturally be omitted be introduced if it does not contradict the writing?

• A. No, never.
• B. Yes, as long as it does not contradict the writing.
• C. Only if both parties agree in writing.
• D. Yes, always.

Answer: (B)

Under the Second Restatement, a written contract can be supplemented with extrinsic terms when the term would have naturally appeared in the writing but was omitted, as long as the new term does not contradict what is written. This fits with the idea that extrinsic evidence may interpret or fill gaps, drawing on course of dealing, usage of trade, or course of performance, rather than contradicting the written terms. So, introducing a term that doesn’t conflict with the writing is allowed, which is why the correct answer is that it can be done as long as there’s no contradiction. The other options fail because they either shut out this possibility entirely or require conditions (like mutual agreement in writing) that aren’t needed for consistent extrinsic terms.