of the parties will illuminate plausible interpretations other than the one that is facially obvious to the judge. See id. Thus, ambiguity determined by the judge’s view of “clear meaning” is a troublesome concept that often obstructs the court’s proper and primary function in this area — to enforce the meaning intended by the contracting parties. See 3 Corbin § 542, at 122-24; Gottsfield, supra, at 385. Recognizing these problems, we are hesitant to endorse, without explanation, the often repeated and usually oversimplified construct that ambiguity must exist before parol evidence is admissible. We have previously criticized the ambiguity prerequisite in the context of non-negotiated agreements. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 162 Ariz. 251, 257, 782 P.2d 727, 733 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 389, 682 P.2d at 394
recognizing the lack of logic in requiring ambiguity which may be fortuitous to prove the true terms of an agreement recognizing that terms and conditions of a proposal for settlement should be devoid of ambiguity patent or latent holding that the judicial admission exception did not apply to prove the existence of an oral agreement for the sale of stock where the defendant offered his deposition testimony acknowledging that the parties agreed to have a document transferring the stocks drafted by an attorney because the defendants references to the agreement were in terms of a tentative or incomplete agreement and because any admission of such a contract would necessarily have to include a statement of the price and quantity terms holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement recognizing a latent ambiguity in a lease agreement