Betaco, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft, Co.
32 F.3d 1126 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under U.C.C. § 2-202, whether a written contract is a fully integrated agreement that excludes prior or contemporaneous statements is a question of the parties' intent, which is determined by considering all surrounding circumstances, including prior negotiations, the sophistication of the parties, and the nature of the extrinsic term; a merger or integration clause is strong evidence of integration but is not dispositive.
Facts:
- Betaco, Inc., whose owner J. George Mikelsons was an experienced pilot and airline executive, expressed interest in purchasing a new CitationJet from Cessna Aircraft Company.
- Cessna sent Mikelsons a packet of materials including a cover letter which stated the new CitationJet 'has more range than the popular Citation I,' a model Betaco was familiar with.
- The packet also contained a formal purchase agreement with detailed technical specifications, including an estimated full fuel range of 1,500 nautical miles.
- Mikelsons signed the purchase agreement, which contained both a warranty disclaimer for any representations not in the agreement and an integration clause stating it was the 'only agreement controlling this purchase and sale'.
- Betaco paid deposits totaling $150,000 towards the purchase of the aircraft.
- Before delivery, a Betaco employee calculated that with a full passenger load, the CitationJet would not have a greater range than the Citation I.
- Based on this calculation, Mikelsons canceled the purchase order.
- Cessna refused to return the $150,000 deposit, citing a liquidated damages clause in the signed agreement for buyer cancellations.
Procedural Posture:
- Betaco, Inc. filed a three-count complaint against Cessna Aircraft Company in federal district court.
- The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on Count II, which alleged breach of an express warranty contained in a cover letter.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Betaco, ruling that the purchase agreement was not a fully integrated contract and extrinsic evidence was admissible.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on Counts I and II.
- The jury found for Cessna on Count I, but for Betaco on Count II, awarding damages of $150,000.
- The district court entered a final judgment in favor of Betaco based on the jury's verdict.
- Cessna, the defendant-appellant, appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling on the integration issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a written purchase agreement that contains an integration clause necessarily a 'complete and exclusive statement' of the parties' agreement under U.C.C. § 2-202, thereby barring as a matter of law the admission of a prior written warranty?
Opinions:
Majority - Rovner, J.
No. A contract containing an integration clause is not, as a matter of law, a complete and exclusive statement of the parties' agreement, as the ultimate determination depends on the parties' intent, which may present a question of fact. The court found that while the purchase agreement contained a strong integration clause and was signed by a sophisticated party, other evidence, specifically Mikelsons' affidavit concerning prior negotiations about the jet's relative range, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties intended the writing to be their complete agreement. The court reasoned that factors such as the contract's boilerplate nature, the sophistication of the parties, the nature of the extrinsic term, and prior negotiations must all be weighed. Given the competing inferences—the strong integration clause versus the affidavit detailing pre-contractual assurances—the question of intent could not be resolved on summary judgment and required a factual hearing.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the modern application of the parol evidence rule under the U.C.C., emphasizing that the rule's application hinges on a fact-intensive inquiry into party intent rather than a rigid, four-corners analysis of the document. It establishes that even a clear integration clause in a contract between sophisticated commercial parties does not automatically preclude extrinsic evidence if there is a factual dispute about whether the parties intended the writing to be their final and exclusive agreement. The decision highlights the tension between the goals of contractual certainty and protecting parties' reasonable expectations based on representations made during negotiations, leaving the ultimate determination to a finder of fact when evidence of intent is conflicting.
Unlock the full brief for Betaco, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft, Co.