With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". instrument.’ ” Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun, 32 Cal.4th 336, 343, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 97, 83 P.3d 497 (Cal.2004). “[T]he rule applies to any type of contract, and its purpose is to make sure that the parties’ final understanding, deliberately expressed in writing, shall not be changed.” Id. at 345, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 97, 83 P.3d 497 (quotation omitted). The parol evidence rule applies if the following two inquiries are answered affirmatively: “1) was the writing intended to be an integration, i.e., a complete and final expression of the parties’ agreement, precluding any evidence of collateral agreements; and 2) is the agreement susceptible of the meaning contended for by the party offering the evidence?” Wang v. Massey Chevrolet, 97 Cal.App.4th 856, 873, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 (Cal.Ct.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the Proprietary

A: holding that when notice to vacate was insufficient to comply with the terms of the lease lease was not properly terminated before commencement of summary ejectment action
B: holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to present testimony that they were induced to enter an automobile lease by promises that they could disregard terms of the lease
C: holding that former employees of a brokerage firm who had a contractual right to a share of any commission received by the firm upon extension of a lease were not entitled to a share of the commission received when the landlord and tenant entered an amendment to the lease which extended the duration but also added new terms this was a new lease not an extension of the prior lease
D: holding that the damage for tenancy at sufferance during the holdover period was the monthly rent under the lease versus the apartments fair market value because the lease contained a provision requiring lease payments beyond the lease term
B.