Lexplug logoLexplug

Federal Work Ready, Inc. v. Wright

Louisiana Court of Appeal
193 So. 3d 1217 (2016)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When the words of a contract are clear, unambiguous, and do not lead to absurd consequences, a court will enforce the contract as written and will not consider extrinsic evidence, such as a party's subsequent claims of unwritten intentions or contingencies, to determine the parties' intent.


Facts:

  • On November 14, 2011, Federal Work Ready, Inc. (FWC) entered into a lease agreement for a commercial property owned by Barry and Millicent Wright.
  • On December 5, 2012, the parties executed a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement, which included an 'Option to Purchase' clause.
  • The clause granted FWC a two-year option to purchase the property for $320,000, exercisable between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014.
  • As consideration for the option, FWC paid the Wrights $100,000, which the agreement stipulated would also serve as pre-paid rent for the 24-month option period.
  • On November 14, 2014, FWC sent written notice via certified mail of its intent to exercise the purchase option, as required by the lease.
  • The Wrights did not claim the certified letter, so FWC subsequently had a private process server hand-deliver the same notice to Barry Wright.
  • The Wrights did not respond to the notices and refused to proceed with the sale of the property.

Procedural Posture:

  • Federal Work Ready, Inc. (FWC) filed a Petition for Specific Performance against Barry and Millicent Wright in a Louisiana trial court.
  • FWC subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment.
  • The trial court partially granted the motion, issuing a judicial declaration that FWC had properly exercised a valid option to purchase the property.
  • The Wrights, as appellants, appealed the trial court's partial summary judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, with FWC as the appellee.
  • The Court of Appeal determined the judgment was not a final, appealable order but exercised its discretion to convert the appeal into an application for a supervisory writ to review the merits of the case.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a clear and unambiguous 'Option to Purchase' clause in a lease amendment create a binding and enforceable contract according to its plain terms, even if one party later claims there was an unwritten, unfulfilled contingency?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Roland L. Belsome

Yes, a clear and unambiguous purchase option in a contract is enforceable according to its plain terms. The court found that the 'Option to Purchase' clause was a valid and binding contract that FWC properly exercised. The court's reasoning was grounded in the Louisiana Civil Code's principles of contract interpretation. First, the option met all formal requirements under La. C.C. art. 2620, as it clearly set forth the thing (the property) and the price. Second, under La. C.C. art. 1983, contracts have the force of law between the parties. Third, and most critically, La. C.C. art. 2046 directs that when the words of a contract are clear and unambiguous, courts must not look beyond the contract's language to determine intent. Therefore, Barry Wright's affidavit claiming the option was contingent on him securing a bank release was inadmissible parol evidence because no such contingency was mentioned in the written agreement. The contract explicitly stated the $100,000 payment was consideration for the option, directly refuting the claim it was only for pre-paid rent. Finally, the court found FWC provided effective notice of its intent to exercise the option, thereby satisfying its contractual obligations.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the fundamental principle of contract law known as the 'four corners' doctrine, emphasizing that courts will enforce the plain meaning of a clear and unambiguous written agreement. The ruling underscores the judiciary's refusal to consider extrinsic or parol evidence to contradict or alter the terms of such a contract. This precedent reinforces predictability and certainty in commercial transactions, serving as a critical reminder for parties to ensure that all terms, conditions, and contingencies are explicitly included in the written document. Future litigants in similar contract disputes will find it exceedingly difficult to introduce evidence of unwritten understandings when the contract itself is clear on its face.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Federal Work Ready, Inc. v. Wright (2016)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"