▁M ud d . ▁Mr ▁M ud d ▁refused ▁to ▁leave ▁and ▁was ▁brought ▁to ▁court . ▁ ▁Coun sel ▁for ▁the ▁land l ord ▁( City ▁and ▁West min ster ▁Properties ) ▁argued ▁that ▁reasonable ▁notice ▁was ▁being ▁given ▁and ▁therefore ▁it ▁could ▁not ▁fall ▁within ▁the ▁High ▁Tre es ▁case . ▁Mr ▁M ud d ▁had ▁no ▁right ▁to ▁remain . ▁ ▁Jud gment ▁Har man ▁J ▁held ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁a ▁coll ater al ▁contract ▁that ▁he ▁could ▁stay ▁even ▁if ▁it ▁contrad icted ▁the ▁written ▁agreement ’ s ▁express ▁terms . ▁He ▁said ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁need ▁to ▁look ▁at ▁the ▁question ▁of ▁est opp el , ▁because ▁there ▁was ▁a ▁clear ▁ass urance ▁preceding ▁the ▁contract . ▁ ▁See ▁also ▁Allen ▁v ▁P ink ▁( 1 8 3 8 ) ▁ 4 ▁M & W ▁ 1 4 0 , ▁setting ▁out ▁the ▁basic ▁par ol ▁evidence ▁rule ▁Jacob s ▁v ▁Bat avia ▁& ▁General ▁Plant ations ▁Trust ▁Ltd ▁[ 1 9 2 4 ] ▁ 1 ▁Ch ▁ 2 8 7 ▁Government ▁of ▁Z anz ib ar ▁v ▁British ▁A eros pace ▁( L anc aster ▁House ) ▁Ltd ▁[ 2 0 0 0 ] ▁ 1 ▁W LR ▁ 2 3 3 3 , ▁parties ▁can ▁explicitly ▁contract ▁to ▁make ▁the ▁written ▁document ▁exhaust ive , ▁saying ▁‘ this ▁is ▁the ▁entire ▁agreement ’ , ▁etc . ▁Ang ell ▁v ▁Duke ▁( 1 8 7 5 ) ▁ 3 2 ▁L T ▁ 3 2 0