Lopez v. Reynoso
118 P.3d 398 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may consider extrinsic parol evidence to determine whether a written contract, even one containing a boilerplate integration clause, was intended by the parties to be a final and complete expression of their agreement.
Facts:
- In May 2000, Stephany Lopez visited Triple R Auto Sales to inquire about a 1994 Ford Explorer with an asking price of $8,500.
- On June 2, 2000, Lopez purchased the Explorer from the owner, Ramon Reynoso.
- The parties signed a written installment sales contract stating a vehicle price of $6,500 and a down payment of $500.
- The contract form included a pre-printed integration clause stating it was the 'complete and exclusive statement of the terms of this agreement.'
- Reynoso received payments totaling $2,000 from Lopez and her boyfriend on or around the date of the sale.
- Lopez made monthly payments for a period but eventually stopped, believing her obligation was nearly fulfilled based on her interpretation of the $2,000 payment.
- After Lopez failed to make payments according to Reynoso's records, Reynoso repossessed the Explorer in March 2002.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephany Lopez filed a complaint against Ramon Reynoso and Triple R Auto Sales in the trial court for replevin and other damages.
- Lopez filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude parol evidence and a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court denied both of Lopez's motions.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, Reynoso and Triple R Auto Sales.
- The trial court denied Lopez's motion for reconsideration.
- Lopez, as Appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Washington.
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 the admission of testimony about an oral agreement that alters the price and down payment terms stated in a written vehicle sales contract that contains a boilerplate integration clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Schultheis, J.
No, the parol evidence rule does not bar the admission of such testimony for the purpose of determining the parties' intent. A court has a duty to ascertain from all relevant extrinsic evidence whether a writing was intended to be the complete agreement. The trial court was obligated to consider extrinsic evidence to determine if the agreement was fully integrated, and a boilerplate integration clause is not controlling if evidence shows it is factually false. Here, substantial evidence, including witness testimony the trial court found credible, supported the conclusion that the parties' true agreement involved an $8,000 price reduced by a $2,000 down payment, and that the written contract was only a partial integration of their agreement created at Lopez's request.
Dissenting - Sweeney, A.C.J.
Yes, the parol evidence rule should have barred the testimony. If the parol evidence rule does not apply to these facts, it is meaningless. The written contract was unambiguous, contained an ironclad integration clause, and was drafted by Reynoso himself. Parol evidence is not admissible to contradict or vary the terms of a fully integrated contract, and the price is a central term. The court should enforce the clear terms of the written agreement, not a contradictory 'secret handshake agreement'.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Washington's adherence to the 'context rule' of contract interpretation, prioritizing the determination of the parties' actual intent over a strict, four-corners reading of a document. It significantly limits the power of boilerplate integration clauses, establishing that they do not automatically prevent a court from considering extrinsic evidence to determine whether the writing is truly a complete integration. The ruling may decrease certainty for parties relying on written contracts, as it opens the door for one party to challenge clear written terms by introducing conflicting oral evidence, making the outcome of such disputes highly dependent on the trial court's credibility determinations.
