Magnolia Lumber Corp. v. Czerwiec Lumber Co., 207 Miss. 738, 43 So.2d 204 (1949). Also, parol evidence may not be used in the interpretation of an unambiguous contract. Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss. 1974). The AFEs were offered in evidence as the factual basis for Sonat's contention that Mann contracted to pay a portion of the drilling, completion, and sidetrack expenses.

Broome Construction Co. v. Beaver Lake Recreational Center, Inc., 229 So.2d 545 (Miss. 1970). See also Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss. 1974) (no mistake, parol evidence rule applies); Stinson v. Barksdale, 245 So.2d 595, 598 (Miss. 1971) (parol evidence is "admissible to show in what manner the contract had been executed by the parties"). As this Court has held, in construing Mississippi law,

(4) The express terms of an agreement and an applicable course of dealing or usage of trade shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but when such construction is unreasonable, express terms control both course of dealing and usage of trade and course of dealing controls usage of trade.See Noble v. Logan — Dees Chevrolet — Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14, 15 (Miss. 1974). Here, defendant has not produced any evidence that its definition of "committed to take" is embodied in any written trade code or similar writing.

Prudential further objects to the bankruptcy judge's conclusion in voiding the deed of trust that the bankrupt was unaware that she was signing a deed of trust since she had not claimed "illiteracy, fraud, or duress" in making the contract. Anthony v. Community Loan and Investment Corp., 559 F.2d 1363, 1369 (5th Cir. 1977); Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14, 15 (Miss. 1974). Rule 810 of the Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure provides

1991); Clow Corp. v. J.D. Mullican, Inc., 356 So.2d 579 (Miss. 1978); Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss. 1974). When Houser signed the August 13 release, all prior agreements, including any evidenced by the letters to which Houser refers, were merged into the writing.

Ordinarily, the contents of documents or records cannot properly be shown except by introducing the document itself, which is the best evidence.See also Lee v. Lee, 119 So.2d 780, 238 Miss. 643 (1960); Noble v. Logan Dees Chevrolet-Buick Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss. 1974). However, the employment contract only related to duties of employment, non-competition clauses, etc. It did not address salary or commission, which is the issue of this lawsuit.

Ralston Purina Co. v. Rooker, 346 So.2d 901, 903 (Miss. 1977); Noble v. Logan-Dees, Chevrolet Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14, 15 (Miss. 1974). This does not mean, however, that a separate contract may not be entered into to explain or supplement the existing contract.

On the basis of this background, our Court has continued to recognize the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule subsequent to the passage of section 75-2-202. See Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss. 1974) ("where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their contract in writing, the writing is not only the best, but the only, evidence of their agreement"). Thus, we conclude that the chancellor was required to consider the testimony offered by Franklin and his friends.

(b) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement. In reaching this conclusion the trial judge relied on Ralston Purina Co. v. Rooker, 346 So.2d 901 (Miss. 1977) and Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss. 1974). Those cases are not applicable because in both cases an effort was made to vary the terms of written contracts by oral agreements claimed to have been entered into before the written contracts were executed.

We hold the terms of the written contract were intended as the exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties. This Court stated in Noble v. Logan-Dees Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 293 So.2d 14 (Miss. 1974), that, where the parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their contract in writing, that writing is not only the best, but the only evidence of their agreement. To be admissible, the testimony of appellees must come within the provision of Exception (b) of Section 75-2-202, supra, and obviously, that testimony concerning purchase of soybeans produced off a particular farm, up to 4,500 bushels, is inconsistent with the contract provisions for buying and selling of 4,500 bushels of soybeans.