The main issue of this case is to determine whether Jenny is obliged to send the sample dresses to Penny or not.
The main subject matter of the case is based on the parole evidence rule. According to the principle, no parties are allowed to insert any additional rule after the final contract has been made and no party will take the plea that some other rules, apart from that has written in the contract, made between them orally. In Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW  HCA 24, it has been mentioned that when a contract has been signed between the parties, all the extrinsic evidences will be excluded and their application will be ceased. Further, the rule of parole evidence prevents all the rules made in the pre-contractual negotiation and establishes those rules that written in the contract. However, if the contract has been signed in between the parties defectively or if the rules mentioned in the written contract are vague, the parole evidence rule will not be applied in those cases. According to the elements of the rule, it can be stated that parole evidences will be applied only if the contract has been written and finalised between the parties (Klass 2018). It prevents the contractual parties from tampering with extrinsic evidences. This rule helps the contract becomes legal and comprehensible in nature. Reasonably, "Parole" is gotten from the Anglo-Norman and legitimate French terms. The term was, truth is told, gotten from the Latin expression 'parabola', meaning 'discourse' (Epstein, Archer and Davis 2014). The essential of the composed contract depends on the reasonable that the gatherings engaged with the assertion ought to be legitimately attached to each other as far as their common understanding and in composing. It has been basically characterized that the contracting gatherings ought not digress or there ought not be any deviation in the last understanding while the assertion is being completed in composing or is being deciphered (Goldberger 2015).
In the present case, it has been observed that a contract has been made between Jenny and Penny and after the contract has been written, both the parties have given their consent. However, it has been observed that after the commencement of the contract, Penny has made a demand to send certain sample of the contracted dresses to her. However, no terms relating to this facts has not been mentioned in the written contract. According to the parole evidence rule, it could be stated that Jenny is not obliged to send the samples to Penny, as she is obliged to maintain those terms that are mentioned in the written contract. Further, both the parties have given their consent over the agreement; therefore, it cannot be stated that any coercive manner has been taken in this case. Therefore, no exceptional process could be applied in this case.
Jenny is not obliged to send the sample dresses to Penny.
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW  HCA 24
Epstein, D.G., Archer, T. and Davis, S., 2014. Extrinsic Evidence, Parol Evidence, and the Parol Evidence Rule: a Call for Courts to Use the Reasoning of the Restatements Rather than the Rhetoric of Common Law. NML Rev., 44, p.49.
Goldberger, J., 2015. The principles of contract interpretation in Australian law. Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia, 29(1), p.22.
Klass, G., 2018. Parol Evidence Rules and the Mechanics of Choice.