MCC-Marble Ceramic Center (MCC) was a retailer of ceramic tile in Florida. MCC agreed to purchase ceramic tile from Ceramica Nuova D’Agostino S.P.A., an Italian manufacturer. Later, MCC alleged that D’Agostino breached the contract by not making some deliveries and delivering lower quality tile than was contracted for. D’Agostino defended on the grounds that the back of the contract required MCC to make complaints by certified letter within 10 days, which MCC had failed to do. The contract was written in Italian on one of D’Agostino’s preprinted forms. MCC tried to present evidence that the parties had agreed that the terms on the back did not apply to their agreement. Was D’Agostino correct to argue that the parol evidence rule prevented the court from considering any evidence contradicting the written contract?