to which the confirmatory memoranda of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement, but may be explained or supplemented . ■by ... course of dealing. Iowa Code § 554.2202. Official comment 1 to Iowa Code section 554.2202 states that this section “definitely rejects ... [t]he requirement that a condition precedent to the admissibility of [course of dealing evidence] is an original determination by the court that the language used is ambiguous.” Iowa Code § 554.2202, cmt. 1; accord C-Thru Container Corp. v. Midland Mfg. Co., 533 N.W.2d 542, 545 (Iowa 1995) (<HOLDING>). In addition, official comment 2 to Iowa Code
holding that the parties agreement was superseded by a subsequent agreement that stated that it comprises the entire agreement and supersedes all prior understandings and representations oral or written between the parties holding that even though a contract stated that it constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior agreements between them it may nonetheless be explained or supplemented by parol evidence pursuant to ucc section 2202 holding that when a contract is partially parol and partially written parol evidence may prove the parol terms holding that identical all agreements language  this policy contains all of the agreements between the parties  is an integration clause holding the parol evidence rule not pertinent to the present issue because a contract may be clear and unambiguous as far as it goes and yet may not express the true agreement of the parties by reason of mutual mistake