Flight Concepts Ltd. Partnership v. Boeing Co.
38 F.3d 1152, 1994 WL 595350 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unambiguous contract term that explicitly grants one party the uncontrolled discretion to not perform an action and to terminate the agreement will defeat claims of fraudulent inducement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on contrary prior oral promises or the party's subsequent exercise of that discretion.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs (the 'Skyfox group') modified a Lockheed T-33 aircraft to produce a new plane called the Skyfox.
- The Skyfox group entered into an exclusive agreement with Boeing Military Airplane Company (BMAC) to produce and sell the Skyfox aircraft worldwide.
- The agreement specified that the Skyfox group would receive a royalty of $150,000 for every Skyfox sold.
- During negotiations, BMAC allegedly made oral promises to invest between $25 million and $60 million in the Skyfox program.
- The final signed Patent and Know-How License Agreement contained Article XIII, which explicitly stated that BMAC was under 'no obligation whatsoever to produce and/or sell' the Skyfox.
- The agreement also contained Article X, which gave BMAC the right to terminate the agreement with 60 days' written notice.
- The agreement included an integration clause (Article XIV) stating it embodied the 'entire understanding between the parties.'
- After two years, BMAC terminated the agreement without having produced or sold any Skyfox aircraft.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Flight Concepts Ltd. Partnership, et al.) filed suit against defendants (The Boeing Co., et al.) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
- The plaintiffs' claims included fraud in the inducement, misrepresentation and concealment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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:
Does a clear and unambiguous contract term that grants one party the unconditional right to not produce a product and to terminate the agreement preclude claims of fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and breach of fiduciary duty based on contrary oral promises or the party's subsequent decision not to perform?
Opinions:
Majority - Mechem, Senior United States District Judge.
No. A clear, unambiguous contract term granting one party unconditional discretion precludes claims based on contrary oral promises or the exercise of that discretion. The court found the License Agreement to be unambiguous as a matter of law, meaning its plain language controls the rights and duties of the parties. For the fraud claim, the parol evidence rule bars consideration of prior oral promises that directly contradict the written terms; Article XIII's 'no obligation' clause squarely conflicts with any alleged oral promise to develop the aircraft. A party has a duty to read a contract and cannot claim ignorance of its contents. Regarding the duty of good faith and fair dealing, the court held this implied covenant is irrelevant where a contract grants a party 'uncontrolled discretion,' as Article XIII did for BMAC. Finally, no fiduciary relationship or joint venture existed, as the parties' agreements expressly disclaimed such a relationship and the facts did not demonstrate that BMAC consciously assumed fiduciary duties. Therefore, BMAC had no special duty to disclose its other projects to the Skyfox group.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of the parol evidence rule and the 'four corners' doctrine of contract interpretation in the face of fraud claims. It establishes that a carefully drafted, unambiguous contract containing an integration clause and a discretionary performance clause can effectively shield a party from liability for alleged contradictory oral promises made during negotiations. The ruling clarifies that the implied covenant of good faith cannot be used to create an obligation where the contract's express terms have negated it by granting 'uncontrolled discretion.' This holding provides strong protection for parties who explicitly contract for maximum flexibility and underscores the high burden on plaintiffs to prove fraudulent inducement when it contradicts a signed written agreement.
