Slide 1

1 George Mason School of Law Contracts II Terms F.H. Buckley Not for sharing fbuckley@gmu.edu

Slide 2

So now we have an enforceable contract But what is its content? 2

Slide 3

Identifying the Terms and Interpreting them Identifying: what are the terms Interpreting: what do they mean? 3

Slide 4

What happens where there is a writing? First question: Is this a binding contract? 4

Slide 5

What happens where there is a writing? Unsigned terms Birmingham TV v. Waterworks at 431 5

Slide 6

The effect of a signature Fraud in the factum? Curtis v. Curtis at 437 6 Justin Bieber signs an autograph

Slide 7

So assume we have a contractbut what are its terms? 7 Identifying the terms 7

Slide 8

The Parol Evidence Rule Do we look outside the written contract? Oral statements Course of dealings Trade customs Implied terms 8

Slide 9

The traditional Parol Evidence Rule Burke at 549 in Masterson Parol evidence is not admitted to add to, vary or contradict the writing 9

Slide 10

The traditional Parol Evidence Rule Burke at 549 in Masterson Parol evidence is not admitted to add to, vary or contradict the writing The four corners rule: a presumption of full integration that excludes oral and other evidence 10

Slide 11

Completely integrated agreements Partially integrated agreements Non-integrated agreements 11 How would the Restatement change this 11

Slide 12

Completely integrated agreements: Four corners rule: cant add to Partially integrated agreements Can add to but cant contradict Non-integrated agreements Anything goes 12 How would the Restatement change this 12

Slide 13

Is the agreement integrated or non- integrated? 209(1) An integrated agreement is a writing or writings constituting a final expression of one or more terms of an agreement. Otherwise parol evidence admitted 13 Non-integrated agreements 13

Slide 14

Is this an integrated agreement? 209(3) Where the parties reduce an agreement to a writing which in view of its completeness and specificity reasonably appears to be a complete agreement, it is taken to be an integrated agreement unless it is established by other evidence that the writing did not constitute a final expression. 14 Integrated Agreements 14

Slide 15

Is this an integrated agreement? 209(3) Where the parties reduce an agreement to a writing which in view of its completeness and specificity reasonably appears to be a complete agreement, it is taken to be an integrated agreement unless it is established by other evidence that the writing did not constitute a final expression. Does this always permit oral evidence? 15 Integrated Agreements 15

Slide 16

Restatement 210(1) A completely integrated agreement is an integrated agreement adopted by the parties as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement. 16 Complete Integration 16

Slide 17

Restatement 210(1) A completely integrated agreement is an integrated agreement adopted by the parties as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement. So no parol evidence of any kind: Cant add to, vary or contradict 17 Complete Integration 17

Slide 18

Restatement 213(2) A binding completely integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that they are within its scope. I.e., cant add to, vary or contradict 18 Complete Integration: Cant Add to 18

Slide 19

Restatement 210 (2) An agreement is not completely integrated if the writing omits a consistent additional agreed term which is (a) agreed to for separate consideration, or (b) such a term as in the circumstances might naturally be omitted from the writing. 19 Partial Integration 19

Slide 20

Restatement 210 (2) An agreement is not completely integrated if the writing omits a consistent additional agreed term which is (a) agreed to for separate consideration, or (b) such a term as in the circumstances might naturally be omitted from the writing. So oral evidence can add to the terms 20 Partial Integration 20

Slide 21

Whether completely or partially integrated: 215 Except as stated in the preceding Section, where there is a binding agreement, either completely or partially integrated, evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements or negotiations is not admissible in evidence to contradict a term of the writing. 21 Partial Integration: Cant contradict 21

Slide 22

Restatement 213(1) A binding integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that it is inconsistent with them. I.e., cant contradict a completely or partially integrated agreement 22 Partial Integration: Cant contradict 22

Slide 23

Restatement 216(1) Evidence of a consistent additional term is admissible to supplement an integrated agreement unless the court finds that the agreement was completely integrated. 23 Partial Integration: Can Add to 23

Slide 24

Can we look behind a signed written contract for the terms of the contract? So the traditional Parol Evidence Rule survives for completely integrated agreements but only in part (cant contradict) for partly integrated agreements 24

Slide 25

Completely integrated agreements: Four corners rule: cant add to Partially integrated agreements Cant contradict Non-integrated agreements Anything goes 25 Parol Evidence: Restatement 209 ff. 25

Slide 26

Limits to the Parol Evidence Rule A agrees to sell his house to B in a signed agreement on Feb. 20. On the same day A sells a painting to B for $400 in an oral agreement. Can the oral agreement be enforced? 26

Slide 27

Collateral Contracts A agrees to sell his house to B in a signed agreement on Feb. 20. On the same day B sells a painting to A for $400 in an oral agreement. Problems? Two entirely distinct contracts may be made at the same time, and will be distinct legally. Williston at 543 27

Slide 28

Collateral Contracts Restatement 213(2) A binding completely integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that they are within its scope. 28

Slide 29

Collateral Agreements The test in Mitchill v. Lath 542 29 Ice House

Slide 30

Alexandria, Payne and Commerce Street 30

Slide 31

Collateral Agreements How is this like my example of the painting? 31

Slide 32

Collateral Agreements What is the test of a collateral agreement? 32

Slide 33

Collateral Agreements The test in Mitchill v. Lath In form a collateral agreement 33

Slide 34

Collateral Agreements The test in Mitchill v. Lath In form a collateral agreement Cant contradict the written agreement 34

Slide 35

Collateral Agreements The test in Mitchill v. Lath In form a collateral agreement Cant contradict the written agreement The collateral agreement would not ordinarily be embodied in the main agreement 35

Slide 36

Collateral Agreements The test in Mitchill v. Lath In form a collateral agreement Cant contradict the written agreement One that would not ordinarily be embodied in the writing Andrews: s fail no. 3 and maybe no. 2 And why is that? 36

Slide 37

Collateral Agreements The collateral agreement would not ordinarily be embodied in the main agreement Restatement 213(2) A binding completely integrated agreement discharges prior agreements to the extent that they are within its scope. 37

Slide 38

Collateral Agreements 38 Restatement 216(2) An agreement is not completely integrated if the writing omits a consistent additional agreed term which is (a) agreed to for separate consideration, or (b) such a term as in the circumstances might naturally be omitted from the writing.

Slide 39

Collateral Agreements Would the ice house covenant ordinarily or naturally be found in the land sale contract? 39 Chief Judge Irving Lehman 39 Judge William Andrews

Slide 40

Collateral Agreements What about a parol warranty on a sale, per Andrews? 40

Slide 41

Masterson v. Sine 546 41 Chief Justice Roger Traynor Escola v. Coca-Cola Jones v. Ahmanson Pacific Gas infra Perez v. Sharp

Slide 42

Masterson v. Sine 42 Chief Justice Roger Traynor Justice Louis H. Burke

Slide 43

Masterson What was the contract? 43

Slide 44

Masterson DallasMedora 44 Sale Option to repurchase

Slide 45

Masterson DallasMedora What was the oral modification? 45 Sale Option to repurchase

Slide 46

Masterson What was the oral modification? Dallas reserves an option to repurchase which does not convey to his assigns (i.e., trustee in bankruptcy) 46

Slide 47

Masterson What happens if an agreement is fully integrated per Traynor? 47

Slide 48

Masterson What happens if an agreement is fully integrated per Traynor? Parol evidence cant be admitted to add to or vary terms 48

Slide 49

Masterson How to tell if a writing is completely or partially integrated per Traynor? 49

Slide 50

Masterson How to tell if a writing is completely or partially integrated per Traynor? Any such collateral agreement must itself be examined? 50

Slide 51

Masterson How to tell if a writing is completely or partially integrated per Traynor? So can a court ever restrict itself to the writing? Or was this about the absence of a merger clause? 51

Slide 52

Masterson What was the oral modification? How to tell if a writing is completely or partially integrated per Traynor? The conception of a writing as wholly and intrinsically self- determinative is impossible: Wigmore 52

Slide 53

Masterson What does it means to say that the Parol Evidence Rule is a rule of substantive law and not of evidence? P. 549 53

Slide 54

Masterson Are Burkes charges correct? The change contradicts a term which would ordinarily be supplied by operation of law. 54

Slide 55

How does the Restatement handle this? Which way does the Restatement come down? Traynor or Burke? 55

Slide 56

How does the Restatement handle this? 214. Agreements and negotiations prior to or contemporaneous with the adoption of a writing are admissible in evidence to establish (a) that the writing is or is not an integrated agreement; (b) that the integrated agreement, if any, is completely or partially integrated; (c) the meaning of the writing, whether or not integrated; (d) illegality, fraud, duress, mistake, lack of consideration, or other invalidating cause; (e) ground for granting or denying rescission, reformation, specific performance... 56

Slide 57

How does the Restatement handle this? Which way does the Restatement come down? Traynor or Burke? Cf. 210(3) comment: a writing cannot prove its own completeness 57

Slide 58

58 George Mason School of Law Contracts II Terms F.H. Buckley Not for sharing fbuckley@gmu.edu

Slide 59

Last day The evisceration of the parol evidence rule in California 59

Slide 60

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? Terms with respect to which the confirmatory memoranda of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement but may be explained or supplemented (a) by course of dealing or usage of trade or by course of performance; and (b) by evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the writing to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement. 60

Slide 61

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? Comment 3: Admit oral evidence unless it would certainly have been included in the writing 61

Slide 62

Compare to the common law standard Admit parol evidence if the terms would naturally be made as a separate agreement: Restatement 216 UCC 2-202 is more ready to admit parol evidence: Admit unless the terms would certainly have been included in the agreement 62

Slide 63

What can be admitted as parol evidence 63 Terms that would not certainly be included in the agreement: UCC Terms naturally made in a separate agreement: Restatement

Slide 64

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? What happened in Hunt Foods 562 64

Slide 65

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? What happened in Hunt Foods 562 How was this an Article 2 transaction? 65

Slide 66

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? What happened in Hunt Foods 557 George Doniler 66 Eastern Can 73% Hunt Foods Asset purchase agreement

Slide 67

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? What happened in Hunt Foods 557 George Doniler 67 Eastern Can 73% Hunt Foods Option to purchase stock

Slide 68

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? Hunt Foods What was the allegedly omitted term? 68

Slide 69

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? Hunt Foods What was the allegedly omitted term? Option to be exercised only if Doliners shopped around 69

Slide 70

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? Hunt Foods What was the allegedly omitted term? Did Hunt admit it had conceded the oral term? And why might Hunt have rejected this? 70

Slide 71

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? Hunt Foods How did the court interpret UCC 2-202? 71

Slide 72

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? Hunt Foods What was the allegedly omitted term? It is not sufficient that the existence of the [oral] condition is implausible. It must be impossible. 72

Slide 73

How does UCC 2-202 handle this? Hunt Foods Were these sophisticated parties? 73

Slide 74

Can the impossibility standard be met? Snyder 565 What was the alleged omitted term? 74 Twin Lakes Garden Apartments Beltsville MD

Slide 75

Can the impossibility standard be met? Snyder Is a cancellation clause inconsistent with the written contract? Why might Greenbaum have wanted to exclude unilateral exit rights? 75

Slide 76

Can the impossibility standard be met? Snyder Is a cancellation clause inconsistent with the written contract? Why was the Hunt Foods reasoning rejected? 76

Slide 77

Can the impossibility standard be met? Snyder Is a cancellation clause inconsistent with the written contract? The courts standard: an absence of reasonable harmony 77

Slide 78

Can one bargain around this? Traynor at 547: The instrument itself may help resolve the issue 78

Slide 79

Can one bargain around this? Traynor at 547: The instrument itself may help resolve the issue But Any such [oral] collateral agreement itself must be examined to determine whether the parties intended [it] to be included 79

Slide 80

Can one bargain around this? Traynor at 547: Are we running into a rule of paternalism here? 80

Slide 81

Can one bargain around this? Traynor at 547: Should the parties be permitted to bargain back into the parol evidence rule? 81

Slide 82

Can one bargain around this? Traynor at 551: Should the parties be permitted to bargain back into the parol evidence rule? And just how would they do this? 82

Slide 83

Can one bargain around this? Traynor at 551: Should the parties be permitted to bargain back into the parol evidence rule? And just how would they do this? Cf Eisenberg and Miller at 566 83

Slide 84

Merger Clauses: UAW at 553 84 Doral Resort and Country Club, Miami

Slide 85

Merger Clauses: UAW How was the merger clause phrased? 85

Slide 86

Merger Clauses: UAW How was the merger clause phrased? What was the alleged omitted term? 86

Slide 87

Merger Clauses: UAW You tellin me I should stay at a scab hotel!!! Concerned Union Executive Nix 87

Slide 88

Merger Clauses: UAW Roushs evidence 88

Slide 89

Merger Clauses: UAW Markman: Can the parties bargain around the threshold question of whether a contract is completely integrated with a merger clause? 89

Slide 90

Merger Clauses: UAW Markman: Can the parties bargain around the threshold question of whether a contract is completely integrated with a merger clause? What was the source of the unfairness to the successor corporation? 90

Slide 91

Merger Clauses: UAW Can you think of something the UAW could have done to satisfy its concerns? 91

Slide 92

Merger Clauses: UAW Can you think of something the UAW could have done to satisfy its concerns? Markman: The Parol Evidence Rule gives the parties the incentive to cure the problem in the express contract 92

Slide 93

Merger Clauses: UAW What was the allegation of fraud? 93

Slide 94

Merger Clauses: UAW What was the allegation of fraud? Did Carol Management falsely represent that the union clause was in the contract? Or that there was no merger clause? 94

Slide 95

Merger Clauses: UAW What was the allegation of fraud? Did Carol Management falsely represent that the union clause was in the contract? Or that there was no merger clause? Keeping mum about plans for sale of the hotel? 95

Slide 96

UAW On Holbrooks analysis, what does a merger clause do? 96

Slide 97

UAW On Holbrooks analysis, what does a merger clause do? Cf. Restatement 216, cmt e: Merger clauses are not controlling 97

Slide 98

Merger Clauses: UAW Recall Danann on merger clauses and fraud at 428 A Danann clause negatives reliance on an representation 98

Slide 99

UAW Does a merger clause always work? Why not in Seibel at 561 99

Slide 100

UAW How would Markman have decided Hachmeister at p. 557? 100

Slide 101

So when can parol evidence be introduced? 101

Slide 102

So when can parol evidence be introduced? Always, it the PER is simply a rule of evidence Traynor, Markman 102

Slide 103

So when can parol evidence be introduced? When the added term would certainly not have been included in the writing: UCC 2-202 103

Slide 104

So when can parol evidence be introduced? When the added term would not naturally have been included in the writing: Restatement 216 104

Slide 105

So when can parol evidence be introduced? When the agreement is tainted by fraud as to its execution or to the presence of a merger clause Unless there is a Danann clause? Restatement 214(d): Illegality, fraud, duress, mistake 105

Slide 106

So when can parol evidence be introduced? Subsequent modifications UCC 2-202--Terms with respect to which the confirmatory memoranda of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement but may be explained or supplemented 106

Slide 107

So when can parol evidence be introduced? Oral conditions: Restatement 217 E.g., this agreement is not operative if 107