From the statement of the parol evidence rule, it evidently can apply only under a combination of different facts. The rule applies, (1) where there is a complete written contract; (2) in an action between the parties to the contract or their repre-6entatives; (3) where the validity of the contract itself is not in issue; and (4) where an attempt is made to show prior or contemporaneous oral terms of such contract. If any one of these facts is lacking, the parol evidence rule has no application. Accordingly it is necessary to consider a group of cases where the rule may seem applicable at first glance, but which are on analysis seen to be completely without the very terms of the rule itself.

24 Rector v. Bernaschina, 64 Ark. 650; 44 S. W. 222.

25 Pacific National Bank v. Bridge Co., 23 Wash. 425; 63 Pac. 207. (The legal effect of the written contract was not to bind either party to obtain the machine, but to give B the option to furnish the machine and get the note, or to give up the note.)

26 Southern, etc., Co. v. Harris, 117 Ga. 1001; 44 S. E. 885.