Induced by the brochure, John decided to buy one of Sperry's machines from a third-party dealer. As a result of the failure of the machine to live up to its description in the brochure, John lost his entire season's crop. Aiming to recover damages for breach of contract, John attempted to sue the dealership. Unfortunately, the dealership had gone bankrupt. John decided that he would try to sue Sperry Rand. Assume that his contract with the dealership excluded any possible tort liability against Sperry Rand. Does John have a contractual remedy against Sperry? Is the parol evidence rule relevant to your determination?