Yellow Book, a business directory firm, made an agreement with JB McCoy Masonry to provide a year of advertising in exchange for a monthly fee. Robin Brooks, the owner of JB McCoy Masonry, signed the agreement as “Owner.” Under the signature line, the contract read “Authorized Signature Individually and for the Customer.” The agreement also contained language stating, “By his/her execution of this agreement, the signer personally and individually undertakes and assumes, jointly and severally with the Customer, the full performance of this agreement, including payment of amounts due hereunder.” JB McCoy Masonry failed to pay the monthly fee, and Yellow Book sued Brooks and the company for the balance due. Brooks argued at trial that she believed the word “Owner” simply meant she was a representative of the business and that she did not think that signing the contract would make her personally liable. The trial court ruled in favor of Brooks, finding that the agreement was ambiguous and that Brooks’s testimony claiming that she did not intend to be personally liable was admissible. Yellow Book appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting Brooks’s parol evidence concerning her intent in entering the contract. Do you think the court of appeals permitted the parol evidence? Why or why not?