Hatley v. Stafford
588 P.2d 603 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a contemporaneous or prior oral agreement is admissible to supplement the terms of a written agreement if the written agreement is only a partial integration of the parties' agreement. An oral term is admissible if it does not contradict an express provision of the writing and is an agreement that might naturally be made separately by parties in their situation.
Facts:
- On October 16, 1974, Stafford Farm and Mike Hatley entered into a short, handwritten agreement for Hatley to lease approximately 52 acres of farmland.
- The stated purpose of the lease was for Hatley to grow wheat, with the term ending on September 1, 1975.
- The agreement contained a 'buy out' provision allowing Stafford Farm to terminate the lease by paying Hatley his costs, up to $70 per acre, for the express purpose of developing a mobile home park.
- The written agreement did not state a time limit for when Stafford Farm could exercise this buy out option.
- Hatley proceeded to plant a wheat crop on the leased land.
- Between June 8 and June 11, 1975, Stafford Farm entered the property and cut the immature wheat crop, invoking the buy out provision.
- Hatley claimed the crop's fair market value was $400 per acre, while Stafford Farm offered to pay no more than the $70 per acre stipulated in the writing.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Mike Hatley filed an action for trespass against defendants Stafford Farm in a state trial court.
- Defendants asserted as a defense their right to terminate the lease under its written terms.
- At trial, the court permitted the plaintiff to introduce parol evidence of an oral agreement that placed a time limit on the buyout provision.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Hatley.
- Defendants Stafford Farm appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Oregon, making them the appellants and Hatley 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:
Does the parol evidence rule bar admission of an alleged oral agreement that places a time limit on a buyout provision in a written lease when the lease itself is silent as to the duration of that provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Howell, J.
No, the parol evidence rule does not bar the admission of the oral agreement. Evidence of a consistent additional term is admissible to supplement a written agreement if the court finds the writing was not intended to be a complete integration of the parties' agreement. The determination of whether a writing is a complete integration is a preliminary question of law for the court, not the jury. The court applies the Restatement of Contracts § 240 test, which allows evidence of an oral agreement if it is (1) not inconsistent with the integrated contract, and (2) is such an agreement as might naturally be made as a separate agreement by parties situated as were the parties to the written contract. Here, the oral time limit is 'not inconsistent' because it does not contradict an express term of the writing, which is silent on the matter. Furthermore, it was 'natural' for these parties to omit the term from their informal, handwritten contract, as they were not sophisticated businesspeople represented by counsel. The court can consider surrounding circumstances, including the informality of the writing and the unreasonable result of a literal interpretation (allowing a buyout of a $400 crop for $70), in determining that the parties did not intend the writing to be their complete agreement.
Dissenting - Lent, J.
Yes, the parol evidence rule should have barred admission of the oral agreement. The majority's interpretation effectively repeals the clear language of the governing statute, ORS 41.740, which states that a written agreement is to be considered as containing all its terms. Allowing a party's testimony about an oral agreement to supplement a writing that is complete on its face makes the statute meaningless and undermines the certainty of written contracts. The alleged oral term is, in fact, inconsistent with the writing, as it fundamentally alters the value of the buyout provision. The only 'substantial evidence' of this supposed oral agreement is the self-serving testimony of the plaintiff, which should not be sufficient to overcome the plain terms of the written contract.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Oregon's adoption of the modern, contextual approach to the parol evidence rule, rejecting a rigid 'four corners' analysis. It establishes that the question of integration is a preliminary one for the court, which may look beyond the document to surrounding circumstances to determine the parties' intent. This approach gives courts flexibility to prevent unfair outcomes that might result from unsophisticated parties creating incomplete written agreements, but it also potentially reduces the certainty and predictability of written contracts. Future cases involving claims of partial integration will now look to factors such as party sophistication, representation by counsel, the formality of the writing, and the reasonableness of the outcome.
Unlock the full brief for Hatley v. Stafford