Jones ( appellee) signed a printed contract form agreeing to purchase a house from Long. Long also signed the form. At the time of signing, Jones also made a down payment as evidence of her good faith to go through with the contract. The down payment was to be applied to the purchase price upon completion of the sale of the house. Jones later refused to go through with the contract and ended up suing Long for the return of the down payment. At trial, Jones introduced parol evidence that an understanding existed between Long’s agent and her that she could not buy the house unless she sold her house first, and that her house was not sold. Jones won her case at the trial level. Long appealed on the grounds that it was improper for the trial court judge to rule for Jones based on the parol evidence rule regarding the agreement between Long’s agent and Jones. Long claims that the contract for the sale of the house had been reduced to writing as the final and complete agreement and parol evidence could not be introduced to alter that agreement in any way. How would you rule in this case?