Xavier has been told by his employer that he is to be sent overseas to work for 12 months. Xavier agrees to rent his flat to Bernadette for $100 per week while he is away. A lease is drawn up in the usual form. (These residential leases are fairly common and can be obtained from any real estate agent.) Prior to filling out the lease, Xavier tells Bernadette that while he is 95 per cent certain of going overseas there may be a last-minute change of plans, inwhich case the lease is to have no effect. Bernadette agrees. Xavier and Bernadette sign the lease, which makes no mention of the fact that the deal is not to go ahead if Xavier is not sent overseas. Xavier is not sent overseas. Bernadette demands that she be given possession of the flat. Xavier denies that he is obliged to do so. Which of the following option(s) is (are) correct? (There may be more than one!) Please consider all options and explain your choice(s). (a) Bernadette is entitled to possession of the flat because of the operation of the parol evidence presumption. (b) Xavier is entitled to possession of the flat because his oral statement represented the true intentions of the parties. (c) Bernadette is entitled to the flat because this is not a partly oral partly written contract. (d) Bernadette is entitled to the flat because of the decision in State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Heath Outdoor Pty Ltd (see [ 6.8 ]). (e) Xavier is entitled to the flat because of the decision in Van Den Esschert v Chappell (see [ 6.24 ]).