A manufacturer entered into a written agreement with a buyer, whereby the manufacturer agreed to build a high-performance racing boat for the price of $200,000. The boat was to be built according to specifications set forth by the buyer, and these specifications were to be incorporated into their agreement. The buyer was to pay for the boat upon delivery if it was in an operable condition. Before signing their written agreement, the manufacturer and the buyer orally agreed that the written contract would be of no effect until the buyer delivered to the manufacturer the plans and specifications and these plans had been assessed and approved by an engineer who worked with the manufacturer.

When the buyer delivered the plans and specifications, the engineer refused to approve the plans because he believed that due to the poor design of the hull, the boat would be very powerful but highly unstable. The manufacturer then indicated to the buyer that the contract was no longer valid, and the buyer then brought an action against the manufacturer for breach of contract.

In court, the manufacturer's attorney sought to introduce evidence of the parties' oral agreement that the plans were to be approved by an engineer. The buyer's attorney objected on the grounds that the parol evidence rule precluded any evidence related to the oral agreement between the manufacturer and the buyer.

Should the court admit the evidence?