On January 11, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued an order declining to review a lower court decision that permits parties to a contract dispute to introduce evidence (known as “parol evidence”) not contained in the written contract and that contradicts the plain language of the contract. The decision was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging the court to grant review in order to bring California is line with contract law adopted elsewhere. Most States forbid the introduction of parol evidence in such circumstances, but a long-standing California rule permits the introduction of parol evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that the contracting parties intended to establish contract terms that differed from those contained in the writing. In urging the court to review the case, WLF argued that uncertainty in California law regarding the admissibility of parol evidence has created significant confusion for people and businesses engaging in commercial transactions.