In construing the legal effect of this lease provision, we cannot consider the negotiations and discussions of the parties and their privies; we can and do consider the relationships and surrounding circumstances. See Van Horn Irrigated Farms v. Leonard, 295 S.W.2d 516, 519 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1956, no writ). The fact that bargain-seeker Furrh did not cause the logical further step to be taken — of requiring MJR to simultaneously execute a standard location agreement — a step that could have been performed at the slightest effort — implies that he did not intend to require MJR to do so. The fact that Vendor, which stood to gain a substantial financial advantage from the execution of a location agreement, omitted the simple step of filling out and contemporaneously presenting this printed form for signature operates as a concession that Vendor did not consider that bargain-seeker Furrh was bargaining for an agreement that was legally enforceable in the hands of Vendor.
23 Tex.Jur.2d p. 573; C. A. Bryant Co. v. Hamlin Independent School District, 118 Tex. 255, 14 S.W.2d 53 (1929, opin. apprvd.); Van Horn Irrigated Farms, Inc. v. Leonard, 295 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1956, no writ). It seems to us that the written agreement here is incomplete and that parol evidence was admissible to show the complete agreement and to explain the uncertainties apparent on its face.
Such evidence does not contradict or vary the agreement, but merely serves the purpose of demonstrating what the writing means. McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evidence (2nd Ed), Vol. 2, Sec. 1681, p. 516; Fenn v. Estate of Burnett, 405 S.W.2d 161 (Tex.Civ.App. .--Fort Worth 1966, no writ); Van Horn Irrigated Farms, Inc. v. Leonard, 295 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1956, no writ); Best Building Company v. Sikes, 394 S.W.2d 57 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1965, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Manning v. Barnard, 277 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1955, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Williamson v. Diltz, 101 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1937, writ dism'd). The contention that the pleadings of the Plaintiff-Appellee were insufficient is without merit.