The difficulty is the fact that there is a written contract which contains terms that are contradictory to Larry’s oral statements about the extra features. Parole evidence rule states that where there is a written contract, the court presumes that this is the entire agreement and the courts will not look out of the contract for any outside statements that vary or contradict. The Signature rule states that, when a person signs a contract, they are bound by it whether they have read it or not as similar to L’estrange v Graucob. Since there is a written contract, the PER applies. No evidence of what Larry said can be admitted to show that his assurances were terms of the contract.