Assignment Task: Read the below hypothetical and answer the question posed at the end.
Mrs. Watson entered into an agreement with ET Holding to buy a venue with the intent to continue using the property weddings as well as other functions. Mrs. Watson claimed that before she sold the venue, ET Holding fraudulently misrepresented that Mrs. Watson could hold late-night events on the property. However, after she bought the venue, Mrs. Watson learned that the permit for it prohibited Mrs. Watson from using the venue as she intended. Mrs. Watson sued ET Holding for breach of contract fraud, misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. In their response, ET Holding argued that the written agreement contained integration clauses which stated that there were no promises or representations about the property other than those stated in the agreement. Furthermore, they argued that the parol evidence rule prevented Mrs. Watson from making any claims based on oral representations that are not part of the written agreement between ET Holding and Mrs. Watson. The trial court granted ET Holding's summary judgment motion. The court also dismissed Mrs. Watson's claims as barred by the parol evidence rule. Mrs. Watson then appealed.
Does the parol evidence rule prevent Mrs. Watson from asserting claims based on ET Holding's allegedly fraudulent oral misrepresentations?