The enforcement of the parol evidence rule, which was originally adopted by the courts in analogy to the rule of merger, whereby a sealed instrument merged a prior simple contract, leads to the doctrine uniformly recognized and enforced at Modern Law, that a written contract merges all prior and contemporaneous oral negotiations.1 This is not technically a rule of merger, since the written contract is of no higher grade than the oral contract. The result, however, is substantially the same as if the technical doctrine of merger were applied; since, in an action upon the written contract, neither party can resort to the prior or contemporaneous oral agreement as evidence of the intention of the parties direct.2