My question is can you re-do the answers so it is original?

1. Did Wagner's offered evidence of the "Love Song" agreement explain or contradict the "Charlie's Angels" contract? Explain the court's reasoning.

The love song agreement did not explain the Charlie angels contract, instead, it only contradicted the express terms that were provided under the Charlie angels' contract. The contract expressly provided that the sharing of the profits would be "for the right to exhibit photoplays of the series and from the exploitation of all ancillary, music and subsidiary rights" while the new evidence stated that Wagner would receive the payments from the film produced and distributed by Columbia contrary to the express provision of Charlie Angel's contract with Wagner. The court held that the movies distributed by Columbia were not acquired or exercised by Spelling-Goldberg Productions but were bought by Columbia in the open market, not under the conditions specified in the contract

2. Briefly explain the parole evidence rule. How does the parole evidence rule apply to the following quotation: ...Justice Holmes explained, that parole evidence is not admissible to show that when the parties 'said five hundred feet they agreed it should mean one hundred inches, or that Bunker Hill Monument should signify the Old South Church [Goode v. Riley, 153 Mass. 585, 28 N.E. 228 (1891)].' "

The parole evidence rule states that Extrinsic cannot be admitted to contradict a very explicit and clear meaning of a contract. It is only admissible if it explains the meaning. This rule applies to the statement since when the contract clearly says five hundred feet, it is very clear that the measurement in that situation is five hundred, which is a very clear term and is not ambiguous. The new evidence should not be admitted to come and attempt to give new meaning that is not the five hundred feet. It is not admissible when the terms are clear. It cannot be taken to try and explain something that is clear to mean something else.

3. Why is it a good idea for the contracts to be written? How might the plain meaning doctrine and the parole evidence rule be more complicated to apply if a contract was oral rather than written?

It is always good to have the contract written as it gives an indication of exactly what the contractual terms are and what is being contracted. It also indicates what is expected of each party. It helps eliminate conflicts that may arise when one party makes a different claim from what was initially contracted. The plain mean and the parole evidence rule may be complicated in an oral contract since there is no clear agreement on the meaning and intention of the exact words. The plain language may be hard to apply since the meaning of the word may have different meanings in different contexts, what one says may not be actually what they mean.