However, where an oral contract is reduced to writing, and the writing is not a complete and final statement of the entire transaction, parol evidence is admissible to show the full agreement. Britton v. Johnson-McQuity Motor Co., 120 Okla. 221, 251 P. 74 (1927). And, as held in Wichita Flour Mills Co. v. Guymon Equity Exchange, 150 Okla. 245, 1 P.2d 657 (1936), when a writing does not purport to disclose the complete contract, or if, when read in the light of the attendant facts and circumstances, it is apparent that it contains only a part of the agreement entered into by the parties, parol evidence is admissible to show what the rest of the agreement was; but such parol evidence must not be inconsistent with or repugnant to the intention of the parties as shown by the written agreement.
In other words, defendant contends there was more to the agreement than what was expressed in the written contract, and he should have been permitted to show a breach of this agreement. Supporting his contention defendant cites and relies upon the cases of French Piano Organ Co. v. Bodovitz, 73 Okla. 87, 174 P. 765; Wayne Tank Pump Co. v. Harper, 118 Okla. 274. 247 P. 985; Britton v. Johnson-McQuity Motor Co., 120 Okla. 221, 251 P. 74, and other related cases, all holding to the effect that when an oral contract is partially reduced to writing and the writing is not a complete and final statement of the entire transaction, parol evidence not inconsistent with such written contract is admissible to show the entire agreement. However, examination of these and other cases cited by defendant reveals certain variances which prevent them from being applicable here.
"(2) The judgment entered by the court was not authorized and is void, for the reason and upon the ground that the jury did not fix the value of the property in this case." Defendant cites in support of these two assignments of error DeGroff v. Carhart, 97 Okla. 145, 223 P. 180; Britton v. Johnson-McQuity Motor Co., 120 Okla. 221, 251 P. 74, and Gross v. Lincoln, 81 Okla. 87, 196 P. 960. In the latter case this court held:
"When the writing does not purport to disclose the complete contract, or if, when read in the light of attendant facts and circumstances, it is apparent that it contains only a part of the agreement entered into by the parties, parol evidence is admissible to show what the rest of the agreement was: but such parol evidence must not be inconsistent with or repugnant to the intention of the parties as shown by the written instrument." See, also, Britton v. Johnson-McQuity Motor Co., 120 Okla. 221, 251 P. 74; Nat. Builders Bureau v. Chickasaw Lbr, Co., 130 Okla. 30, 264 P. 907. The contract in question appears to be complete on its face, and it is not sought by the evidence admitted to supply an omission.
However, there are numerous exceptions to this rule, several of which exactly apply to the facts of this case, but the exception which applies most exactly to the facts in this case is as follows: "A letter written by one of the parties to an agreement after the agreement has been completed and showing on its face that it is merely a confirmatory letter and a statement of the writer's opinion as to what the agreement is, is not a contract which comes within the rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to add to or vary the terms of a written agreement. See Milton v. Burton (Fla.), 84 So. 149; Britton v. Johnson McQuitty Motor Co., 251 P. 74, 120 Okla. 221; Hardella v. Welin Davit Boat Corporation, 220 N.Y.S. 115, 219 App. Div. 353; Perry v. Bates, 100 N.Y.S. 884, 115 App. Div. 337; Alderman v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 97 Conn. 419, 103 A. 267; Means v. Blanks, 84 So. 742, 22 C.J. 1132, 10 R.C.L. 1019, 1030; Stebbins v. Niles, 25 Miss. 267; Doe ex dem Caillaret v. Bernard et seq. (Miss.); 7 S. M. 319; Ohio Pottery Glass Company v. Pickle (Miss.), 66 So. 321; Schlater Mercantile Company v. Brinly Hardy Co. (Miss.), 68 So. 444; Hunt et al. v. Garner (Miss.), 112 So. 7; Williams v. W.M. Hardy Son (Miss.), 106 So. 17.