<P> A final agreement is either a partial or complete integration, provided that it has an agreement on its face indicating its finality . If it contains some, but not all, of the terms as to which the parties have agreed then it is a partial integration . This means that the writing was a final agreement between the parties (and not mere preliminary negotiations) as to some terms, but not as to others . On the other hand, if the writing were to contain all of the terms as to which the parties agreed, then it would be a complete integration . One way to ensure that the contract will be found to be a final and complete integration is through the inclusion of a merger clause, which recites that the contract is, in fact, the whole agreement between the parties . However, many modern cases have found merger clauses to be only a rebuttable presumption . </P> <P> The importance of the distinction between partial and complete integrations is relevant to what evidence is excluded under the parol evidence rule . For both complete and partial integrations, evidence contradicting the writing is excluded under the parol evidence rule . However, for a partial integration, terms that supplement the writing are admissible . To put it mildly, this can be an extremely subtle (and subjective) distinction . </P> <P> To put it simply, (1) If the parties intend a complete integration of the contract terms, no parol evidence within the scope of agreement is permitted . (2) If the parties intended a partial integrated agreement, no parol evidence that contradicts anything integrated is permitted . And (3), if the parol evidence is collateral, meaning it regards a different agreement, and does not contradict the integrated terms, and are not terms any reasonable person would always naturally integrate, then the rule does not apply and the evidence is admissible . </P> <P> In a minority of U.S. states, (Florida, Colorado, and Wisconsin), the parol evidence rule is extremely strong and extrinsic evidence is always barred from being used to interpret a contract . This is called the Four Corners Rule, and it is traditional / old . In a Four Corners Rule jurisdiction, there are two basic rules . First, the court will never allow parol evidence if the parties intended a full and completely integrated agreement, and second, the court will only turn to parol evidence if the terms available are wholly ambiguous . The policy is to prevent lying, to protect against doubtful veracity, to enable parties to rely dearly on written contracts, and for judicial efficiency . </P>

What does it mean if a term is collateral to a written agreement
find me the text answering this question