Daily Development for January 22, 2007
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC
School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders
Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
VENDOR/PURCHASER; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; PAROL EVIDENCE RULE: A buyer may obtain specific performance of a written agreement of sale, notwithstanding parol evidence suggesting different terms, where the court concludes that the contract was integral, despite the absence of an integration clause, and there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation..
Carrow v. Arnold, 2006 WL 3289582 (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2006).
Carrow, as seller, entered into an agreement of sale with Arnold, as buyer, for his 223 acre farm. Carrow asserted that Arnold made certain representations prior to contract execution to induce Carrow to sell, and Carrow sought to admit parol evidence to rescind the contract based on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. Arnold responded that the agreement of sale was integrated and the parol evidence rule barred consideration of the earlier communications and counterclaimed for specific performance.
It’s an old story. Carrow was an aging farmer, and Arnold was a real estate developer. Allegedly, in the course of negotiations, Arnold represented to Carrow that “nothing would change” on the farm for Carrow during Carrow’s lifetime, that Arnold was acquiring the farm for a hunting preserve. Carrow alleged a series of statements by which Arnold led Carrow to believe that the property would be developed. Indeed, even after the contract was signed, Arnold, discussing the transfer of portions of the farm to the local Nature Conservancy, discussed the preservation of rights in Carrow during Carrow’s lifetime.
While the contract was still executory, Carrow learned that it was likely that Arnold would subdivide and sell portions of the farm right away, and therefore sought declaratory relief establishing that the agreement contemplated that Arnold would retain the property and that Carrow would be able to farm it (by leasing it back). The agreement did contain a statement that Carrow would have a life estate on his home place and small acreage, but the dispute had to do with the farming rights in the rest of the land.
Carrow sought admission of the parol evidence rule under one or both of two exceptions: (1) for instances where the contract language is ambiguous, and (2) when the contract is the product of fraud or misrepresentation. The court determined that neither exception applied to the instant case. In general, the court found that there were no specific representations of fact, and that at best Arnold indicated attitude and conjecture. Further, the court noted, the contract directly contradicted some of the expectations that Carrow claimed he had, and therefore Carrow could not reasonably have relied upon inconsistent statements that he had heard before the contract.
The agreement did not contain an integration clause, and the court acknowledged that the presence of such clause creates a presumption that the written statement is complete, and that such presumption does not exist otherwise. Carrow relied on this to show that other parts of the parties’ negotiations should be taken into account in stating their agreement.
But the Court found that other circumstances supported the conclusion that the writing was a final expression of the parties' intent by virtue of the fact that it was formally typewritten, that the signatures were acknowledged by a notary, that Carrow had negotiated certain changes to the contract, that Carrow had the opportunity to consult with other professionals to review the document, and that Carrow had consulted with his accountant and had met with the buyer and accountant at that meeting. (Carrow used his accountant in negotiations, but never hired an attorney.)
Comment 1: The case raises the interesting issue of when a court will find a contract integrated. It’s useful analysis for presenting evidence to a court. But note that the court in fact discusses the evidence anyway, since Carrow’s lawyer was able to get most of it into court in order to establish the fraud claim. An interesting and effective tactic.
Still, the court used the somewhat common sense approach to conclude that Carrow couldn’t have been relying upon these other promises when the contract unambiguously created rights in Arnold that were inconsistent with Arnold’s expectations. Thus, in one fell swoop, the court decided the fraud claim and simultaneously rendered moot any argument that Carrow and Arnold in fact had an agreement contrary to what the written contract stated.
Comment 2: The editor is a bit less comfortable with the stress on the presence of notaries and typewritten agreements. A crafty charlatan might indeed use these devices to bootstrap an otherwise shady deal into legitimacy. But the editor, based upon the court’s analysis, tends to agree that this probably didn’t happen here. Carrow admitted that he should have studied the deal more. Indeed, he should have had a lawyer do so. It’s not that there might not have been some aggressive and even misleading promotion of the deal - there very well might have been - the problem is that even aging farmers have the right and responsibility to do business on the basis of formal agreements, and should read what they sign and accept the consequences.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions
in
legal matters. The same is true of
all
commentary provided by contributors to the
DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions
expressed
are the sole responsibility of the
DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication
of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to
a
source that is readily accessible by members
of
the general public, and should take that
fact
into account in evaluating
confidentiality
issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume
varies,
but commonly runs 5 15 messages
per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day.
To
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes
not only
commercial and general real estate
matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers
generally find
this service more valuable, it
is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in
the
residential market will want to subscribe
to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT,
as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in
addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the
message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the
address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar
Association
Section on Real Property, Probate
& Trust Law and
the University of Missouri,
Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily
Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A.
Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of
Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission
for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided
that
no charge is imposed for such distribution
and
that appropriate credit is given to
Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its
sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/
*************************************
Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.
To change your e-mail address or remove your name from any future general distribution e-mails you can call us at 1-800-285-2221, or write to: American Bar Association, Service Center, 321 N Clark Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60610
If you are an ABA member, log in to the ABA Web site at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/MyABA/home.cfm to edit your member profile. Otherwise, complete the form located at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=https://www.abanet.org/members/join/coa2.html
To review our privacy statement, go to https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/privacy_statement.html.
If you have any problems, please contact the list owner
at
dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.