With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". because Plaintiffs claims are not based on the Agreements, that its theory based on the earlier promises would not modify the Agreements (even if-they are integrated), and that the Court should admit parol evidence to interpret the terms of the Agreement. As a threshold matter, Plaintiff contends that Defendants cannot raise an argument based on the integration clause because they are not parties to the Agreements. Opp’n at 8-9. The Court rejects this argument. Plaintiff is suing Defendants based on the Agreements, and Plaintiffs authority does not support its position that non-parties cannot invoke the parol evidence rule or integrated contracts when the contracts are central to the issue at hand. See Thomson v. Canyon, 198 Cal.App.4th 594, 609, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 (Cal.Ct.App.2011) (<HOLDING>). Defendants’ cases, however, support the

A: holding that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent of parties
B: holding rule applicable to witness
C: holding the parol evidence rule applicable where contractual obligations are at issue but noting that in some cases it is unclear whether third parties can rely on the rule
D: holding that parol evidence can be presented when the terms of the agreement are ambiguous
C.