Problem:
Parol Evidence Rule says that if a written contract is a complete and final statement of the parties' agreement, any prior or comtemporaneous oral or written statements that alter, contradict, or are in addition to the terms of the written contract are inadmissable in court regarding a dispute over the contract.
Basically, what is being said here is that "a written contract is viewed as the best evidence of the terms that the parties agreed to", and the courts will not allow the use of extrensic documents in a dispute over the terms of the contract. The contract stands on its own, up to the court's intrepretation.
what is your opinon (300+words)