HVAC Inc., a contractor that installs and services air handling equipment, was sued by Jacco & Associates for breach of contract after HVAC canceled an order and refused to pay the $23,000 cancelation fee. In court, HVAC argued that certain delivery obligations (not specified in the original contract) had not been met by Jacco, and thus, HVAC had a valid defense for canceling the order and refusing to pay Jacco’s fee. Jacco argued that HVAC’s claims regarding failure to deliver by a certain date constituted parol evidence not permissible in light of the contract’s “Terms and Conditions for Sale” provision, which stated: “The terms and conditions stated herein constitute the full understanding between Jacco & Associates and the buyer, and no terms, conditions, understanding or agreement purporting to modify or vary these terms shall be binding unless hereafter made in writing by Jacco and the buyer.” Furthermore, the contract also included a provision that “Jacco & Associates does not guarantee a particular date of shipment or delivery.” If Jacco is successful in court, what will be the court’s rationale?