Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01734/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01734-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unired States Court of Appeals 

TPnth Cirrnir 

APR 19 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

AMERICAN CORROSION CONTROL ) Clerk 

CORP., an Oklahoma corporation, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ANIXTER BROS, INC., a ) 

Delaware corporation, and ) 

MADISON WIRE AND CABLE CORP., ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 88-1734 

(D.C. Civil No. 86-C-308-E) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff appeals the district court's entry of judgment for 

defendant following a bench trial on plaintiff's diversity claim 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1734 Document: 010110034269 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 1 
·-

for breach of contract. (Plaintiff does not appeal the district 

court's dismissal of its claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.) 

We affirm. 

Plaintiff claims the district court erred in holding that 

plaintiff was barred by the parol evidence rule from introducing 

evidence that the parties had agreed to contractual terms that do 

not appear in the written sales contract executed between them. 

It cites two exceptions to the parol evidence rule under Oklahoma 

law as applying to the facts of this case. 

First, plaintiff claims extrinsic evidence is admissible to 

aid the court in construing an ambiguous contract. The district 

court specifically found, however, that the contract executed 

between plaintiff and defendant was unambiguous, and the plaintiff 

has failed to raise or discuss any particular alleged ambiguities 

in this document. We agree with the district court's conclusion 

on this issue. Thus plaintiff's argument that extrinsic evidence 

should have been admitted to aid the district court in construing 

the written contract executed between the parties must fail. 

Second, plaintiff argues that the written contract in this 

case was executed contemporaneously with an oral agreement whereby 

defendant agreed to provide wire in conformance with the 

applicable Air Force specifications, thus allowing for the 

admission of extrinsic evidence on the oral agreement (citing 

Mid-West Chevrolet Corp. v. Noah, 48 P.2d 283 (Okla.)). Contrary 

to plaintiff's repeated misstatements, however, the district court 

did not find that the parties had discussed the existence of the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1734 Document: 010110034269 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 2 
.,. 

Air Force specifications prior to or during their execution of the 

written contract. Furthermore, plaintiff's argument would fail 

even if such discussions had taken place, since under Oklahoma 

law, parol evidence that tends to alter or contradict the scope 

and meaning of a written instrument is not admissible under the 

"contemporaneous oral contract" exception. American Perforating 

Co. v. Oklahoma State Bank, 463 P.2d 958, 966 (Okla.). In this 

case, plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence that defendant had 

agreed to supply plaintiff with a type of wire different from the 

type of wire described in the written contract executed between 

them. This evidence clearly would have altered the scope and 

meaning of the written instrument and was properly excluded by the 

district court. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered by the Court 

PER CURIAM 

Appellate Case: 88-1734 Document: 010110034269 Date Filed: 04/19/1991 Page: 3