Final answer:
The most likely FALSE statement is that Reeba may be asked to work weekends as interpreted by the golden rule.
Step-by-step explanation:
The most likely FALSE statement in this scenario is a. As interpreted by the golden rule, Reeba may be asked to work weekends.
The golden rule of contract interpretation is that the court must interpret the contract according to what a reasonable person would have understood the terms to mean. In this case, Reeba's manager verbally assured her that she will not be asked to work weekends. Therefore, it is unlikely that Reeba may be asked to work weekends based on the golden rule.
On the other hand, the verbal assurance by the manager is most likely a part of the contract. The parol evidence rule states that a written contract represents the final agreement between the parties, but it does not exclude evidence of oral agreements made before or at the time the written contract was entered into.
The contra proferentem rule may apply if the judge thinks the term is unreasonable. This rule is used when there is ambiguity or uncertainty in a contract, and it states that any ambiguity should be resolved against the party who drafted the contract.
If not working weekends is a term that induces Reeba to sign the contract, it may create a collateral contract. A collateral contract is a separate agreement that is not explicitly stated in the main contract, but it is made between the parties and is intended to induce one party to enter into the main contract.