of the contract include oral promises that it alleges CDW’s sales representatives made during the course of, negotiating the purchase of the SAN solution, including oral promises regarding “the very- nature of the goods [and] services sold under the purchase order.” Resistance to CDW Motion at 12. Specifically, BVS ■ alleges that CDW breached its oral promise to provide a “complete solution.” Id, at 13, 22. ii. Applicable law Under Iowa law, “when an oral agreement precedes a written agreement on the topic, ordinarily it will be' found the oral discussion merged into the written agreement.” Commercial Trust & Sav. Bank of Storm Lake v. Toy Nat’l Bank of Sioux City, 373 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Iowa Ct.App.1985); see also Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D. Indus., LLC, 753 N.W.2d 1, 5-6 (Iowa 2008) (<HOLDING>); Starry v. Starry & Lynch, 212 Iowa 274, 234
holding that the arbitration agreement in a written contract did not apply to a dispute arising from a subsequent oral agreement which did not incorporate the arbitration clause from the written contract holding that even though a contract stated that it constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior agreements between them it may nonetheless be explained or supplemented by parol evidence pursuant to ucc section 2202 holding that the parties agreement was superseded by a subsequent agreement that stated that it comprises the entire agreement and supersedes all prior understandings and representations oral or written between the parties holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties holding that an oral compromise and release agreement was unenforceable where there was no written stipulation between the parties