Final answer:
The Parol Evidence Rule does not bar subsequent modifications to a written contract. Therefore, Kim may introduce evidence of the manager's promise of a free bridal suite if it's considered a subsequent modification to the original lease.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student's question deals with the applicability of the Parol Evidence Rule (PER) to a situation where a manager made a verbal promise after a written lease was signed. The PER is a legal principle that generally precludes the admission of evidence of prior or contemporaneous negotiations and agreements that contradict, modify, or vary the contractual terms of a written contract that appears to be whole. However, if the manager promised Kim the bridal suite for free after the written lease was signed, this promise could be considered a subsequent modification that may not be barred by the PER, as it is a new and separate agreement. Therefore, Kim may be able to introduce evidence of this promise into court to prove that the agreement was modified. It's important for individuals entering into leases and agreements to understand that the PER does not apply to subsequent modifications as long as they are properly proved.