Through a written contract signed by both parties, Rye agrees to sell his Taco Delight restaurant to Sati. The parties intend their written contract to be a final statement of the terms of their agreement. Later, the parties end up in a dispute because they cannot agree on a key term in the contract, even though the term as written is clear and unambiguous. In a lawsuit between the two, Sati seeks to present testimonial evidence of an eyewitness to the negotiations who witnessed the parties' negotiations just before the final contract was signed. If the court allows the witness to testify, Sati's witness will testify that a key provision in the written contract actually says the exact opposite of what the parties had discussed just before they signed the agreement. Regarding this testimonial evidence, most likely the court will

a$.$ exclude the evidence under the Parol Evidence rule.

b$.$ revise the written contract $($by court order$)$ to match the evidence offered by Sati.

c$.$ strike a balance between Sati's evidence and the written terms of the contract.

d$.$ dismiss the case so the parties can revise their contract out of court.