context: The evidence does not explain a notice provision in the contract, but rather seeks to change it. As such, the evidence is barred under Arizona's parol evidence rule.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: extrinsic evidence rejected because it is inconsistent with written contract and therefore imper-missibly contradicts or varies terms of contract
citation_a.sentence: See also Vecsel Partners, 29 F.3d 637, 1994 WL 315631 * 1 (extrinsic evidence rejected because it is inconsistent with written contract and therefore imper-missibly contradicts or varies terms of contract).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 181 B.R. 980, 980
citation_b.parenthetical: parol evidence rejected because it contradicts rather than aids in interpreting, terms of the agreement
citation_b.sentence: See Apollo Group, 58 F.3d at 482 (extrinsic evidence rejected because it contradicts parties’ final agreement); Thurston v. Citizens Utility Co., 1994 WL 462117 * 7 (D.Ariz., June 30, 1994), aff'd, 91 F.3d 155 (9th Cir.1996) (extrinsic evidence is rejected because it varied or contradicted, rather than explained or elaborated on, the terms of agreement); In re Redpath, 181 B.R. at 980 (parol evidence rejected because it contradicts rather than aids in interpreting, terms of the agreement).