Later that same day, a clerk in International's office signs the slip and returns it to the Bank. The clerk is willing to testify that he did not notice that the -International was not selling Euros, it confirmation had the terms exactly reversed was supposed to be buying them. After a significant drop in the value of the dollar -so that buying Euros was more expensive International allegedly discovered the error and announced that it was refusing to go through with the transaction. To cover the transaction, the Bank had to go on the open market and buy euros at a higher price, which cost it approximately $50,000. The Bank has now sued International. International seeks to introduce evidence of the original oral transaction to show that the contract was all a mistake. The Bank opposes such evidence. Can International get its evidence admitted? What should each side argue here?