” and therefore should be dismissed. Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). In other words, if after taking the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations a d to perform under the contract for three years until the end of September 2012 when Defendant breached the contract by terminating it two years prematurely. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract under North Carolina law. Defendant’s contention that the five-year term was part of an oral agreement does not require dismissal. Under North Carolina law, a valid contract may be partially written and partially parol. McMichael v. Borough Motors, Inc., 14 N.C.App. 441, 444, 188 S.E.2d 721, 722 (1972); see also Beal v. K.H. Stephenson Supply Co., Inc., 36 N.C.App. 505, 508, 244 S.E.2d 463, 465 (1978) (<HOLDING>). The Statute of Frauds does not apply to
holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake holding that when a contract is partially parol and partially written parol evidence may prove the parol terms holding the parol evidence rule presumes finality with respect to the written terms of the agreement only and does not prevent consideration of parol evidence concerning the duration of contract holding that parol evidence can be presented when the terms of the agreement are ambiguous holding that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent of parties