Gold Kist, Inc. v. Carr

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland
886 S.W.2d 425 (1994)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An alleged oral agreement is unenforceable under the parol evidence rule when it directly contradicts a clear and unambiguous term in a written contract. Furthermore, a cause of action for fraud cannot be based on the breach of an oral promise that is itself unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Facts:

Walter Dan Holland, a manager for Gold Kist, Inc., began negotiations to sell company trucks and hauling equipment to Edward C. Carr, Jr.
An initial verbal agreement included a provision granting Carr the exclusive right to haul peanuts for Gold Kist in Texas.
Gold Kist's corporate headquarters rejected the exclusive hauling rights provision, concerned it would lose business from customers who used their own trucks.
Holland informed Carr that Gold Kist would not grant him the exclusive right to haul all of its peanuts.
A final written contract was drafted for Carr to purchase the equipment for a reduced price.
This contract contained the express provision: 'Gold Kist, from time to time, may, but shall be under no obligation to, engage you to haul commodities on its behalf.'
Before signing, Carr questioned this provision, and Holland relayed a colleague's interpretation that it likely meant Gold Kist did not have to use Carr if his performance was poor.
On September 24, 1986, Carr signed the written contract containing the 'no obligation' clause.

Procedural Posture:

Edward C. Carr, Jr. sued Gold Kist, Inc. in a Texas trial court, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud.
Gold Kist filed a counterclaim against Carr for payment due on a promissory note.
The case was tried before a jury, which found in favor of Carr on his claims.
The jury awarded Carr $570,401.00 in actual damages and $250,000.00 in exemplary damages.
The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict and also granted Gold Kist an offset of $36,568.41 on its counterclaim.
Gold Kist (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, an intermediate appellate court, with Carr as the appellee.

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 an alleged oral agreement for exclusive hauling rights enforceable when it directly contradicts an unambiguous provision in a written contract stating there is 'no obligation' to use the hauling services, and when the alleged agreement is not performable within one year?

Opinions:

Majority - McCloud, Chief Justice

No. An alleged oral agreement for exclusive hauling rights is unenforceable because it is barred by both the parol evidence rule and the Statute of Frauds. The written contract unambiguously states that Gold Kist has 'no obligation' to use Carr's services, and this clear language cannot be contradicted by evidence of a prior oral agreement under the parol evidence rule. The court found the contract's meaning was not uncertain or susceptible to more than one interpretation. Carr's fraud claim also fails because it is premised on an unenforceable promise; allowing recovery for fraud based on the breach of an unenforceable contract would create an anomaly and permit a party to do indirectly what the law prohibits directly. The alleged oral promise for a five-year term was also barred by the Statute of Frauds because it could not be performed within one year and was not evidenced by a sufficient writing signed by Gold Kist.

Analysis:

This case strongly affirms the primacy of clear, unambiguous written contracts over conflicting oral representations under the parol evidence rule. It illustrates that a party who signs a contract with a clear disclaimer (like a 'no obligation' clause) cannot later use claims of contradictory oral promises to rewrite the agreement. The decision also significantly limits the ability to use a fraud claim as an 'end-run' around the Statute of Frauds, establishing that a tort claim for fraud cannot be sustained if its substance is merely the breach of a promise that was unenforceable as a contract in the first place. This reinforces the policy that certain long-term agreements must be in writing to prevent disputes based on conflicting memories of oral negotiations.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gold Kist, Inc. v. Carr (1994)

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

Premium Feature