Hoeg Corp. v. Peebles Corp.
2017 NY Slip Op 6066, 153 A.D.3d 607, 60 N.Y.S.3d 259 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the parol evidence rule, a comprehensive written agreement that is complete and integrated on its face will preclude the admission of evidence of a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement that contradicts or varies the terms of the written instrument, even in the absence of a merger clause.
Facts:
- In December 2011, the plaintiff approached the defendant to discuss forming a joint venture to respond to requests for proposals from the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC).
- The plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into an oral agreement for a joint venture, wherein the defendant would hold a 75% equity share and the plaintiff would hold a 25% share.
- On May 14, 2012, the parties executed a formal written retainer agreement.
- The written agreement defined the plaintiff's role as a consultant, outlined specific compensation structures and expense reimbursements, and stated it applied to 'all properties' to be acquired and developed on behalf of the defendant.
- The defendant, with the plaintiff's assistance, successfully won a bid to purchase and develop an EDC property.
- The defendant subsequently sold the development rights to that property in a multimillion-dollar deal.
- The defendant refused to honor the terms of the alleged oral joint venture agreement and did not give the plaintiff a 25% share of the proceeds.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an action in the Supreme Court, Kings County (a trial-level court), against the Defendant for breach of an oral contract, among other claims.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) (defense founded upon documentary evidence) and (a)(7) (failure to state a cause of action).
- The Supreme Court, Kings County, issued an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
- Defendant (as appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.
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 comprehensive written retainer agreement, which appears to be a complete and integrated instrument, preclude a plaintiff from enforcing an alleged prior, contradictory oral joint venture agreement under the parol evidence rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Chambers, J.P., Miller, Duffy and Connolly, JJ.
Yes, a comprehensive written retainer agreement that appears to be a complete and integrated instrument precludes a plaintiff from enforcing an alleged prior, contradictory oral joint venture agreement. The parol evidence rule bars evidence of a prior oral communication that contradicts or varies the terms of a written agreement which is clear, unambiguous, and expresses the parties' entire agreement. Even without a merger clause, a court can determine if a contract is fully integrated by examining the writing and the surrounding circumstances. Here, the written retainer agreement was comprehensive in scope, defined the relationship as consultant-principal, provided for specific compensation, and stated it applied to 'all properties,' leaving no room for a separate oral joint venture agreement. Therefore, the documentary evidence of the written agreement conclusively disposes of the plaintiff's claim for breach of the purported oral contract.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength and application of the parol evidence rule in New York contract law. It clarifies that a written agreement need not contain a specific 'merger clause' to be considered fully integrated and to bar evidence of prior oral agreements. The court's focus on the comprehensiveness and internal consistency of the document itself provides a clear signal that parties must ensure their written contracts accurately reflect their entire understanding. This precedent strengthens the finality of written agreements and makes it more difficult for parties to introduce evidence of 'side deals' or prior negotiations that contradict the final written terms.
Unlock the full brief for Hoeg Corp. v. Peebles Corp.