After extensive negotiations, representatives for an automobile manufacturer and a tire maker orally agreed on the specifications for a supply of tires. the lawyer for the car manufacturer then drafted a written agreement and sent it to the tire maker's lawyer, who modified the draft and sent it back to the car manufacturer. this writing was signed by both parties. the tire maker now brings an action for breach of contract against the car manufacturer seeking damages. the car manufacturer attempts to introduce the testimony of its chief negotiator describing the oral agreement with the tire maker representatives that the tires would meet certain requirements of the car models. the tire maker objects, arguing that the parol evidence rule bars admission of this testimony. which of the following is the best argument supporting admission of the testimony? a the memorandum signed by the parties was not a complete integration of their agreement. b the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence interpreting a written agreement. c the car manufacturer detrimentally relied on the oral agreement in signing the memorandum. d the parol evidence rule does not exclude misrepresentations.