Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.
2004 Pa. LEXIS 1606, 578 Pa. 479, 854 A.2d 425 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a written contract contains an integration clause declaring it to be the entire agreement between the parties, the parol evidence rule bars the admission of prior written or oral representations, such as a promotional brochure, to vary or contradict the terms of the final, signed agreement.
Facts:
- In October 1998, the Pittsburgh Steelers sent a brochure to prospective purchasers, including Ronald Yocca, Paul and Patty Serwonski, and Ronald Carmassi, advertising "stadium builder licenses" (SBLs) for a new football stadium.
- The brochure included small, general diagrams of the proposed seating sections, which appeared to show, for example, that the "Club I Section" was located between the twenty-yard lines.
- Based on the brochure, Yocca and the other appellees submitted applications with their seating preferences and a required non-refundable deposit.
- In August 1999, the Steelers sent the appellees a letter confirming their section assignments, which was attached to new diagrams showing altered section boundaries (e.g., Club I now appeared to extend to the ten-yard lines).
- Two months later, the Steelers mailed the appellees a formal, two-page "SBL Agreement" to sign, which specified the section assignment and expressly incorporated a separate "Additional Terms" document.
- The "Additional Terms" document contained a clear integration clause stating, "This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties... and shall supersede any representations or agreements previously made."
- The appellees signed the SBL Agreement and paid the remaining installments.
- In 2001, after receiving their specific seat assignments, the appellees discovered their seats were in less desirable locations than they had expected based on the original 1998 brochure diagrams (e.g., Yocca's seat was on the eighteen-yard line).
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Yocca and other purchasers (Appellees) filed a class action complaint against the Pittsburgh Steelers (Appellants) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court).
- The Steelers filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The trial court sustained the Steelers' preliminary objections and dismissed the Appellees' complaint.
- The Appellees appealed the dismissal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud and misrepresentation claims but reversed the trial court's dismissal of the breach of contract, consumer protection (UTPCPL), and declaratory relief claims.
- The Steelers, as appellants, then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which was granted.
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 breach of contract and consumer protection claims that are based entirely on representations in a promotional brochure when the plaintiffs later signed a fully integrated written agreement that superseded all prior representations?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Nigro
Yes, the parol evidence rule bars the claims. The SBL Agreement, not the SBL Brochure, constituted the parties' final, binding contract. The brochure was merely a solicitation of offers, not a contract itself. The subsequent SBL Agreement was a complete contract containing an explicit integration clause, which is a clear sign that the writing represents the parties' entire agreement. Therefore, the parol evidence rule applies and bars the admission of evidence of prior negotiations or agreements, including the SBL Brochure, to alter the terms of the final written contract. Furthermore, because the appellees signed the integrated agreement disclaiming reliance on prior representations, their consumer protection claims fail because any reliance on the brochure was not justifiable as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the power of an integration clause in contract law. It clarifies that preliminary marketing materials are considered part of prior negotiations and are superseded by a final, integrated written agreement. The ruling establishes that parties cannot use such materials to support breach of contract claims, nor can they claim justifiable reliance on them for tort or consumer protection claims when they have signed a contract explicitly disclaiming such reliance. This provides significant protection for sellers who use clear, integrated contracts and places a heavy burden on consumers to read and understand the final terms of an agreement before signing.
