False.
The purpose of the parol evidence rule is actually to limit the admissibility of oral or written evidence that would contradict or modify the terms of a fully integrated written agreement. In other words, if a written contract is determined to be the complete and final expression of the parties` agreement, any prior or contemporaneous oral or written statements made by the parties regarding the terms of the contract are generally inadmissible in court.
The parol evidence rule serves two main purposes. First, it promotes the finality and certainty of written agreements by preventing parties from later introducing evidence that contradicts or undermines the terms of a contract that they have already signed. Second, it helps to ensure that the parties` intentions are accurately reflected in the written agreement, rather than allowing extraneous or ambiguous statements that may not have been fully understood or agreed upon to modify the terms of the contract.
However, it is worth noting that there are some exceptions to the parol evidence rule. For example, if the written contract is found to be ambiguous or incomplete, oral testimony or other extrinsic evidence may be admissible to clarify the parties` intent. Additionally, evidence of fraud, duress, or mistake may be admissible even if it contradicts the terms of the written agreement.
In summary, the purpose of the parol evidence rule is not to allow oral evidence to prove agreements as the statement suggests, but rather to limit the admissibility of certain types of evidence that would modify or contradict the terms of a fully integrated written agreement. As a professional, it is important to ensure that all articles and content accurately reflect the intended message and convey factual information to readers.