The Laths were the owners of a farm that they wished to sell. Mrs. Mitchell considered purchasing the land but found that a barn located across the road was objectionable. Mitchell argued that the Laths orally agreed to remove the barn in consideration of her promise to purchase the property, which she agreed to do for $8,400 in a written contract. The contract made no mention of the removal of the barn. After Mitchell moved into her new home and made several improvements to the land, the Laths never removed the barn and expressly communicated that they had no intentions of removing the barn. Mitchell sued the Laths for breach of contract. In whose favor do you think the court ruled? What effect does the parol evidence rule have on admissibility of oral agreements regarding the promise to remove the barn? Fully explain your answer.