On January $2,$ Mega Construction Company, a general contractor, executed a written contract with Bob Brick, Inc., a subcontractor. The contract relates to a major strip mall building project in Plano, and Mega faces a deadline of October $31$ in its contract with The Jones Consortium, L$.$L$.$C$.,$ the owners of the new mall. In the agreement between Mega and Bob Brick, the parties stipulate that $$time is of the essence$$ in terms of performance of the bricklaying work and that the deadline for Bob Brick$$s completion of the bricklaying work is July $15.$ There is also a $$liquidated damages$$ clause in the contract between Mega and Bob Brick, indicating that, if the work is not completed by July $15,$ Bob Brick will pay $$2,000$ in damages for every day the bricklaying is not completed beyond July $15.$

Bob Brick does not complete the bricklaying work by July $15.$ In fact, the project is not finished until August $30,$ and Mega now claims liquidated damages from Bob Brick in the amount of $$92,000($representing $46$ days beyond the July $15$ deadline, multiplied by $$2,000$ per day.$)$ Bob Brick refuses to pay the $$92,000,$ and Mega sues.

At trial, Bob Brick$$s attorney seeks to introduce the following evidence: $1)$ the testimony of Bob, Bob Brick$$s owner, who is willing to testify under oath that at the time of the signing of the contract, Mega$$s general manager, Mary Monroe, said, $$Pay no attention to the July $15$ deadline in the contract; if you need more time, all you have to do is ask$$; and $2)$ a crumpled index card, purportedly in Mary$$s handwriting, indicating $$no $$hard and fast$$ deadline on Bob Brick's brick work.$$

Should the trial court judge admit the index card and Bob's testimony? Why or why not?