the parties did not intend delivery to occur until the Corn crossed the weighbelt and seeks to offer deposition testimony to that effect. Thus, as a threshold issue, the Court must determine whether additional information should be considered to determine the in tent of the parties when drafting the contract language. The Parol Evidence Rule is not an evidentiary rule at all. It is a substantive common law rule that excludes prior or contemporaneous oral agreements that are inconsistent with a written contract if the written contract encompasses the complete agreement of the parties. Phelps-Dickson Builders, L.L.C. v. Amerimann Partners, 172 N.C.App. 427, 436, 617 S.E.2d 664, 670 (2005); see also Ivey v. Wilson (In re Payne), 2006 WL 3524442, at *14-15 (Bankr.M.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 2006) (<HOLDING>); Godfrey v. Res-Care, Inc., 165 N.C.App. 68,
holding that parol evidence was inadmissible to contradict the terms of a security agreement and promissory note holding that when a contract is partially parol and partially written parol evidence may prove the parol terms holding evidence that would contradict add to or subtract from or affect the construction of a valid complete and unambiguous written instrument is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule holding the parol evidence rule presumes finality with respect to the written terms of the agreement only and does not prevent consideration of parol evidence concerning the duration of contract holding that parol evidence can be presented when the terms of the agreement are ambiguous