Luther Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Johnson
1967 D.C. App. LEXIS 159, 229 A.2d 163 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Parol evidence of an oral condition precedent to the formation of a contract is admissible, even when the written agreement contains an integration clause, as long as the oral condition does not contradict a specific term of the writing.
Facts:
- Luther Williams, Jr., Inc. ('Williams') negotiated with appellees to perform improvements on their home.
- Williams offered to arrange financing, but appellees stated they would secure their own funding through their bank.
- Appellees told Williams that the home improvements were contingent upon their bank's approval of their financing.
- The parties signed a written contract for the improvements.
- The contract contained a clause stating, 'This contract embodies the entire understanding between the parties, and there are no verbal agreements or representations in connection therewith.'
- Appellees were ultimately unable to obtain the necessary financing from their bank.
- After failing to secure financing, appellees informed Williams they could not proceed and hired another contractor for different work.
Procedural Posture:
- Luther Williams, Jr., Inc. sued the appellees in the trial court to recover liquidated damages under a contract.
- The appellees defended by arguing the contract never came into existence because an oral condition precedent (obtaining financing) was not fulfilled.
- At trial, Williams objected to the admission of testimony regarding the oral condition, but the trial court overruled the objections.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellees.
- Luther Williams, Jr., Inc., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the D.C. Municipal Court of Appeals.
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 testimony about an oral condition precedent when the written contract contains an integration clause stating it is the entire agreement between the parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Quinn, Judge
No. The parol evidence rule does not bar the admission of testimony regarding an oral condition precedent, even with an integration clause, because such evidence does not seek to vary the terms of the writing but rather to prove that the contract never became legally effective. The court reasoned that an oral condition precedent is admissible when the contract is silent on the matter and the testimony does not contradict a specific term of the writing. An integration clause strengthens the presumption that the writing is a final repository of the parties' agreement, but it does not prevent a court from examining the surrounding circumstances to determine the parties' true intent regarding whether the writing was meant to be a complete statement. The court adopted the view that an oral condition is only inconsistent with the writing if it contradicts a specific term (e.g., a delivery date), not a general integration clause. Since the contract was silent on financing, the oral condition did not contradict any of its terms and was therefore admissible to show the contract was never intended to become binding.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the limits of an integration clause in contract law. It establishes that such a clause does not automatically preclude evidence of an oral condition precedent that goes to the very existence of the contract. The ruling prioritizes determining the parties' actual intent over a mechanical application of the parol evidence rule. For future cases, this means that even a seemingly complete written agreement can be challenged by evidence that its effectiveness was contingent on an unfulfilled oral condition, so long as that condition does not directly conflict with a specific provision in the text.
Unlock the full brief for Luther Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Johnson