“Under the parol evidence rule, if a court finds that a written contract represents the complete and final statement of the parties’ agreement, it will not allow either party to present parol evidence (Clarkson, 2, p. 302)
.” The whole idea behind this rule is to give importance to the written contract as the best evidence of the parties' intentions. In this case, parol evidence may be admissible to explain the terms of the contract since the contract does not actually define what constitutes groceries and sundries, but however, the UCC does has certain exceptions when it comes to the interpretation of contracts. “For example, the UCC's "Statute of Frauds" requires that certain contracts, including sales of goods over $500, must be in writing. If the contract is clear and understanding, parol evidence may not be admissible.
