NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 3772

_____________ DO M I NO ’ S P I ZZA LLC

v. R O B E R T J . D E A K ,

A ppel l ant

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 3- 05- cv- 00456) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

_______________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 4, 2010 B e f o re : A M B R O , C H A G A R E S a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: J une 4, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudge . R obertJ . D eak ( “D eak” ) appea l s fr om a Sept ember4, 2009 or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng D om i no’ s Pi zza L L C ’ s ( “D om i no’ s ”) m ot i on forj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs and ent er i ng decl ar at oryr el i efPar agr aph 9 cont empl at es bas es fort erm i nat i ng the Penns y l vani a A gr eement , none 1 of w hi ch ar e ati s s ue i n thi s cas e. 2 i n favorof D om i no’ s . D eak a r gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourti nappr opr i at el yappl i ed P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s p a ro l e v id e n c e ru le a n d f a ile d to a p p ly a r e c o g n iz e d e x c e p tio n to th e ru le . B eca us e w e agr ee thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtpr ematur el ydecl i ned t o appl ythe admi s s i ons exce pt i on t o Penns y l vani a’ s par ol evi dence rul e, w e w i l l r ever s e and va cat e the S e p te m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e r a n d re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . I. A. I n 1980, D eak e nt er ed i nt o a fr anchi s e agr eementw i th D om i no’ s Pi zza , I nc. , the predecessor- i n-i nter estt o D om i no ’s . T his agreem ent gr anted D eak ex cl usi ve franch i se r i ght s i n cert ai n ar eas of Penns y l vani a ( the “Penns y l vani a A gr eement ”) . A m ong other p ro v isio n s, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia A g re e m e n t es tab lish e d a ter m lim it:

“ U n les s s o o n e r te rm in a ted a s p ro v id e d in P a ra g ra p h 9 , th e in iti a l te rm o f th is 1 A greem ents ha l l be fr om the da t e he r e of un t i l the l a s tda yof

the fi r st A gr eementY earand ther eaf t er , thi s Agr e e me n ts h a l l b e au t o mat i cal l yr enew ed f o r su c c e ss iv e ter m s o f

o n e A g re e m e n t Y e a r u n til th e las t d a yo f th e ten th (1 0 th ) A g re e m e n t Y e a r, u n les s [ D e a k ] sh a ll, a t [ h is] s o le o p tio n , ele c t n o t to r enew and s hal l gi ve w r i t t en not i ce t o D O M I N O ’ S of suc h el ect i on atl eas tone h u n d re d tw e n ty (1 2 0 ) d a y s p ri o r t o th e e n d o f a n yA g re e m e n t Y e a r.” (J.A . at 5 9 .) In 1 9 9 0 , D e a k a n d D o m in o ’s e x e c u ted a n a d d e n d u m to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia A g re e m e n t th a t, in tera lia , ext ended the t erm of the A gr eement“foran addi t i onal t en ( 10) y earper i od fol l ow i ng the expi r at i on dat e of the [Penns y l vani a] A gr eement . Forpurpos es3

of cl ar i fi cat i on, the part i es agr ee thatthe expi r at i on dat e of the [Penns y l vani a] A gr eement as exec ut ed bythi s A ddendum shal l be J ul y31, 2000. ” (I d. at89. ) Fi nal l y , D eak a nd D om i no’ s ent er ed i nt o an addi t i onal addendum i n 2001 thatext ended the t erm of the Penns y l vani a A gr eement“foran addi t i onal fi ve ( 5) y eart erm . Forpurpos es of cl ar i fi cat i on, the part i es agr ee thatthi s addi t i onal fi ve ( 5) y eart erm comm ence d A ugus t1, 2000 and expi r es J ul y31, 2005. ” (I d. a t 9 5 .) I n 1984, D eak a nd D om i no’ s ent er ed i nt o a s econd e xcl us i ve fr anchi s e agr eement forcert ai n ar eas i n M ai ne ( the “M ai ne A gr eement ”) . T he M ai ne A gr eement cont empl at ed an i ni t i al t erm of “t en ( 10) y ear s comm enci ng on the dat e of e xecut i on of thi s A gr eement . ” (I

d. at99. ) T her eaf

t er , D eak a nd D om i no’ s ent er ed i nt o an adde ndum
w hi ch ext ended the t erm of the M ai ne A gr eement“foran addi t i on t en ( 10) y earper i od fol l ow i ng the expi r at i on dat e of the [M ai ne] A gr eement . Forpurpos es of cl ar i fi cat i on, th e p a rties a g re e th a t th e e x p ira tio n d a te o f th e [ M a in e ] A g re e m e n t as e x e c u ted b yth is A ddendum shal l be D ece m ber9, 2004. ” (I d. at 11 7 . ) O n A u g u st 17 , 2 0 0 5 , D o m ino ’s i n fo rm ed D ea k , b yletter, that itp lann ed to “s tart accep t i ng app l i cat i on s t o b uil d st ores i n p ort i on s of w hat w as once y ou r ar ea agreem ents .

. . . W e di s agr ee thaty ou have be en gr ant ed ar ea r i ght s thatexce ed anyw r i t t en document and have comm uni cat ed thatpos i t i on t o y ou on s ever al occa s i ons . ” (I d. at123. ) D eak
r es ponded w i th a l ett erfr om couns el cont endi ng thatthe Penns y l vani a and M ai ne A gr eement s cont i nue t o be i n ful l for ce a nd eff ect , and that“[s ] peci fi c r epr es ent at i ons4

w er e made t o [D eak] thathi s [Penns y l vani a and M ai ne] A gr eement s w oul d notbe l i m i t ed
as t o t i m e. ” (I

d. at125. ) D eak’ s couns el then as s ert ed thatD om i no’ s pr opos ed cour s e of act i on “i s contr aryt o the s peci fi c pr om i s es m ade byD om i no’ s t o M r . D eak a nd pr ocee di ng al ong thes e l i nes w i l l be dee m ed t o be a br eac h of thos e guar ant ees . ” (I d. ) B. I n l i ghtof thi s di s agr eementr egar di ng the t erm s of the Penns y l vani a and M ai ne A gr eement s , and i t s des i r e t o i s s ue new fr anchi s es , D om i no’ s fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our ts eeki ng a dec l ar at oryj udgm entthatthe A gr eement s had expi r ed and that D om i no ’s w as fr ee t o is sue new franchis es i n D eak’s previ ou sl yexclusi ve areas. I n hi s ans w er , D eak c ont ended thata form eroffi cerof D om i no’ s had made or al
r epr es ent at i ons t o hi m thathe had the r i ghtt o r enew hi s Penns y l vani a and M ai ne A gr eement s on the s ame ors ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l art erm s fors o l ong as he oper at ed D om i no’ s s t or es . I n part i cul ar , D eak r el i ed on an uns w orn s t at ementfr om Sue Pagni ano (“ P a g n ian o ” ), a f

o rm e r R e g io n a l V ice P re sid e n t o f D o m in o ’s, in w h ich sh e sta ted , “It is
m ys peci fi c r ecol l ect i on ther e w er e no t i m e l i m i t s pl ace d on the l ength of the ar ea contr act s . I tw as under s t ood thatM r . D eak’ s r i ghtt o be an A r ea Fr anchi s ee i s forthe dur at i on of hi s devel opm entand ow ner s hi p of D om i no’ s Pi zzaSt or es . . . . ” (I d. at 14 3 . ) D e a k a lso f

iled a c o u n ter c laim f

o r a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t re c o g n izin g D o m in o ’s is
o b lig a ted to re n e w th e P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d M a in e A g re e m e n ts in th e sa m e o r su b sta n tially si m i l ar form as pastagreem ents . T he D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed D om i no ’s m oti on t o d i sm i ssT h e D istri ct C o u rtap p li ed P en n sy lvan ia l aw to this co n tr ac t dispu te. T h e c o u rt 2 decl i ned t o abi de bythe choi ce- of- l aw pr ovi s i ons i n the Penns y l vani a and M ai ne A gr eement s beca us e the part i es di d nots eek t o enfor ce thos e pr ovi s i ons pr i ort o fi l i ng the R ul e 12( c) m ot i on. T he Penns y l vani a A gr eements el ect ed M i chi gan l aw , w her eas the M a in e A g re e m e n t se lec ted “ th e law s o f th e sta te in w h ich th e E x c lu siv e A re a . . . is l ocat ed. ” ( See J .A . a t 6 8 , 1 0 9 .) Al th o u g h th e a p p l i c a b i l i tyo f a c h o i c e - o f

- l a w pr ovis i on i s nota j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue a n d th e p a r t i e s ma ywa i v e th e i rr i g h tt o e n f o r c e i t , th e c o n f

l i c t s o f l a w is s ue r egar di ng w h ic h f o ru m ’s la w s h o u ld a p p ly to th e d is p u te m a yn o t b e w a iv e a b le . See H uberv. Tayl or , 4 6 9 F . 3 d 6 7 , 7 5 n . 1 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A cc o rdin g ly , o n rem an d , the D istri ct C o u rt m a yw ish to re v isit it s p o sitio n o n th is m a tter in lig h t o f th e b a sis f

o r o u r re v e rsa l. T h e o rd e r d ism iss in g D e a k ’s a m e n d e d c o u n ter c laim is n o t at iss u e in th is a p p e a l. 3 5 D eak’ s count er cl ai m , w i th l eave t o amend. I tdet erm i ned thatPenns y l vani a’ s par ol
ev iden ce rule b ars the ad m issi o n o f th e a ll eg ed ag ree m en t fo r ren ew al, w h ich w as n o t part of a s epar at e agr eement , and thatD eak di d notpl ead e vi dence of an a dm i s s i on s uffi ci ent t o s urvi ve D om i no’ s R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on. 2 D eak then fi l ed an a m ended c ount er cl ai m , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC ourtcons trued as
r el y i ng excl us i vel yon the admi s s i ons exce pt i on t o the par ol evi dence rul e. T he D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed D om i no’ s s econd Rul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on becaus e the admi s s i ons D eak
o f f e re d d id n o t rise to th e lev e l o f e v id e n c e p re v io u slya c c e p ted b yP e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts
w hen appl y i ng the admi s s i ons exce pt i on. I n part i cul ar , the D i s tr i ctC ourtnot ed that D eak’ s ow n as s ert i ons and the uns w orn t es t i m onyof a f orm eroffi cerdo nots at i s fythe admi s s i ons exce pt i on. 3 D om i no’ s s ubs equent l yfi l ed the s ubj ectm ot i on forj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs underR ul e 12( c) . Pr i ort o thi s fi l i ng, how ever , D eak c onduct ed a de pos i t i on of Pagni anoD o m in o ’s h a s s o u g h t lea v e o f th is C o u rt to f

ile a su r-re p lyb rie f

p u rsu a n t to 4 F e d e ra l R u le o f

A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 2 8 (c ). W e w ill g ra n t D o m in o ’s m o tio n in a se p a ra te or der . I n the br i ef, D om i no’ s cont ends thatPagni ano’ s depos i t i on cannotbe cons i der ed i n the cont extof i t s R ul e 12( c) m ot i on becaus e i tw as notpartof the pl eadi ngs under co n side rati o n . R eg ard less o f th e v ali d ityo f th is co n tention , w e d o n o t r elyo n P ag n iano ’s depos i t i on i n r eac hi ng ourconcl us i on. 6 in w h ich sh e a d o p ted , u n d e r o a th , h e r a ss e rtio n s in h e r p re v io u slyu n sw o rn sta tem e n t. 4 Pagni ano di ed s hor t l yther eaf t er . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed D om i no’ s R ul e 12( c) m ot i on byfi ndi ng, i n part , thatD eak f ai l ed t o s uffi ci ent l ypl ead a n admi s s i on t o s urvi ve D o m in o ’s m o tio n . D e a k f iled th is tim e lya p p e a l.

II. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rth a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is m a tte r p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1332( a) and had a uthor i tyt o i s s ue dec l ar at oryr el i ef pur s uantt o § 2201( a) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi nal and appe al abl e or derpur s uantt o § 1291. “O urs t andar d of r evi ew of a m o ti o n fo rj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs under Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( c) i s pl enary . U nderR ul e 12( c) , j udgm ent w i l l notbe gr ant ed unl es s the m ovant cl ear l y es t abl i s hes that no m at er i al i s s ue of fac t r emai ns t o be r es ol ved and that he i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof law . In re v iew in g th e g ra n t o f a R u le 1 2 (c ) m o tio n , w e m u st v iew th e f a c ts pr es ent ed i n the pl eadi ngs and the i nfer ence s t o be dra w n ther efr om i n the l i ght m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y .” R os enau v. U

ni f und C or p. , 539 F. 3d 218, 221 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng Jablons kiv. P an A m . W or ld A i r w ays , I

nc. , 8 6 3 F .2 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 0 -9 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 )) .

III .7

A s a pr el i m i narym att er , w e not e thati n conduct i ng i t s r evi ew of the R ul e 12( c)
m o tio n , the D istric t C o u rt o b se rv e d th a t itc o u ld “ c o n sid e r a n yu n d isp u tab lya u th e n tic document s att ache d as exhi bi t s . ” D om i no’s P iz z a LLCv. D eak , 654 F. Supp. 2d 336, 341 (W .D . P a . 2 0 0 9 ). A s a g e n e ra l p ro p o sitio n , this is tru e b e c a u se F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 0 (c ) e sta b lish e s th a t a w ritten in stru m e n t atta c h e d to a p lea d in g a s a n e x h ib it i s partof the pl eadi ng i t s el f. W e have det erm i ned, how ever , thatnotal l w r i t t en in stru m e n ts m a yb e c o n sid e re d p a rt o f th e p lea d in g a n d h a v e o p in e d th a t an a f f id a v it
c a n n o t b e p a rto f

a p le a d in g . Se e R o se v . B a rtle , 8 7 1 F .2 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 9 n .3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). A s s uch, Pagni ano’ s s t at ementatt ache d t o D eak’ s ans w er , w hi ch i t s el f i s noteven a n aff i davi t , coul d nothave be en cons i der ed bythe D i s tr i ctC ourtw i thoutconvert i ng the R u le 1 2 (c ) m o tio n in to a m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (d ); c f. R ose , 871 F. 2d at339 n. 3. N everthel es s , D eak pl ed the s ubs t ance of Pagni ano’ s al l eged ad m issi o n in the b o d yo f h is plead ing ; th ere fo re, ne ith er the D istri ct C o u rtn o r th is C o u rt need l ook bey ond the pl eadi ngs t o di s pos e of D om i no’ s R ul e 12( c) m ot i on. D eak r ai s es thr ee i s s ues on appea l : ( 1) Penns y l vani a’ s par ol evi dence rul e does not appl ybeca us e the Penns y l vani a and M ai ne A gr eement s w er e notful l yi nt egr at ed; ( 2) the p a ro l ev id e n c e ru le d o e s n o t ap p lyb e c a u se h is rig h t o f re n e w a l is th e su b

jec t o f a se p a ra te agr eement ; and ( 3) even i f the par ol evi dence rul e appl i es , he has s uffi ci ent l ypl ed the
e x is te n c e o f

a n a d m is s io n to s u rv iv e D o m in o ’s R u le 1 2 (c ) m o tio n .O n a re late d n o te, w e w ill a lso a ss u m e , w ith o u t d e c id in g , tha t th e re is n o se p a ra te 5 a g re e m e n t in th is m a tter. O u r a ss u m p tio n th a t th e p a ro l ev id e n c e ru le a p p lies n e c e ss a rily e n t a i l s th e a s s u mp t i o n th a tth e p a r o l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b yDe a k c o n c e rn s th e s a me s u b je c t m a tte r a s th e w ri tte n a g re e m e n t. Se e In re Esta te o f H a ll , 535 A . 2d 47, 55 ( Pa. 1987) ( i ndi cat i ng par ol evi dence rul e bar s admi s s i on of pr i ororcont empora neous or al re p re s e n ta tio n s o n ly if

th e yc o n c e rn a m a tte r s p e c if ic a lly d e a lt w ith in th e c o n tr a c t its e lf ). S im p lye n o u g h , if th e p a ro l ev id e n c e c o n c e rn s th e sa m e su b jec t m a tter a s th e c o n tra c t, i t c a n n o t b e th e b a s is f

o r a s e p a ra te a g re e m e n t. See I r on W orker ’s Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n v. I W S, I nc. , 622 A . 2d 367, 373- 74 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1993) ( not i ng s epar at e agr eementm ay exi s tonl yi f i tconce rns a s ubj ectm att erdi ffe r entthan w r i t t en agr eement ) . T her efor e, b e c a u se w e a ss u m e th e p a ro l ev id e n c e ru le a p p lies , w e a re led to th e in e v itab le a ss u m p tio n th a t, fo r th e p u rp o se s o f th is a p p e a l, th e re is n o se p a ra te a g re e m e n t. 8 Forthe purpos es of thi s appea l , w e w i l l as s um e, w i thoutdeci di ng, thatthe par ol evi dence rul e appl i es . C ons equent l y , “evi dence of anypr evi ous or al orw r i t t en 5 neg oti at i on s or agr eem ents i nv olvi ng the sam e subjectm at t er as the co ntr acti s al m ost al w ay s i nadmi s s i bl e t o expl ai n orvarythe t erm s of the contr act . ” Y occa v . P i t t

s bur gh St eelers Spor t

s , I nc. , 8 5 4 A .2 d 4 2 5 , 4 3 6 -3 7 (P a . 2 0 0 4 ). In th is c a se , D e a k se e k s to i ntr oduce e vi dence that , pr i ort o exec ut i ng the Penns y l vani a and M ai ne A gr eement s , he
w as guar ant eed the r i ghtt o r enew the A gr eement s on the s ame ors ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar t erm s foras l ong as he cont i nued t o ow n and oper at e D om i no’ s s t or es . B ecaus e w e have
as s um ed the par ol evi dence rul e appl i es , w e have nece s s ar i l yas s um ed thatthe w r i t t en a g re e m e n t a n d o ra l r e p re s e n ta tio n s c o n c e rn th e s a m e s u b je c t m a tte r. See I

n r e Estat e of H a ll , 535 A . 2d 47, 55 ( Pa. 1987) ( not i ng rul e onl ybar s evi dence on s ame subj ectm att er as w r i t i ng) . T her efor e, D eak’ s as s ert i on of an or al agr eementthatthe A gr eement s have9

n o tim e lim it w o u ld b e b a rr e d b yth e p a ro l e v id e n c e ru le . See Yocca , 854 A . 2d at436- 37 (ba rri n g p aro l evid en ce that w o u ld v aryterm o f c o n tr ac t) . N e v e rt h e le s s , “the par ol evi dence rul e has never barr ed the i ntr oduct i on of cl ear , pr eci s e, and convi nci ng evi dence t o sh o w thatthe partyw ho s eeks t o enfor ce the w r i t t en agre ementacc or di ng t o i t s t enorhas admi t t ed and a cknow l edged thatthe agr eementas w r i t t en di d notexpr es s w hat the part i es i nt ended a nd thatw hat th e p a rt ie s in te n d e d w a s o m itte d f ro m th e a g re e m e n t b y m is ta k e o r a c c id e n t.” Scot tv. B r

yn M aw rA r m s , I

nc. , 312 A . 2d 592, 595 ( Pa. 1973) ( al t er at i on om i t t ed) . T he par ol evi dence rul e bar s the admi s s i on of m at er i al contr aryt o the expr es s t erm s of the
w ritten a g re e m e n t, “u n les s it is a d m itt e d th a t th e w h o le o f th e a g re e m e n t is n o t se t f o rth in the w r i t i ng. ” I

d. T he bur den i s on the pr oponentof the par ol evi dence t o es t abl i s h s uch an admi s s i on of i ncompl et enes s i n the w r i t i ng byevi dence w hi ch i s cl ear , pr eci s e, and
c o n v in c in g , i d. , a n d th is b u rd e n is o f b o th la w a n d f

a c t, C oalO

per ators C as . C o. v. C har l es T. E as t er by & C o. , 269 A . 2d 671, 674 ( Pa. 1970) . T he admi s s i on of i ncompl et enes s m us thave be en made, oral l eged t o have be en made, ata t i m e s ubs equent to e n te ri n g in to th e w ri tte n a g re e m e n t. Sc o tt , 312 A . 2d at596. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t D e a k ’s a v e rm e n ts o f a n a d m iss io n “ sim p ly cannotcons t i tut e the r equi s i t e pene tr at i ng admi s s i ons . ” D eak , 6 5 4 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 3 4 6 . W e do notagr ee thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtcoul d r eac h thi s concl us i on atthi s s t age of the pr ocee di ngs . T he D i s tr i ctC our tw as r equi r ed t o “vi ew the fa ct s pr es ent ed i n the p le a d in g s a n d th e in f

e re n c e s to b e d ra w n th e re f ro m in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le ” to D e a k .10

See Rose nau , 53 9 F . 3d at22 1. Judg m ent on the p l eadings shou l d n ot be grant ed u nles s th e re is n o m a te ri a l is s u e o f f a c t a n d D o m in o ’s is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . See i d. U n d e r th is h ig h sta n d a rd , w e c a n n o t ag re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt. M anyof the Penns y l vani a ca s es addr es s i ng the s uffi ci encyof evi dence of an ad m issi o n p roc ee d ed to tr ial , af fo rdin g the p artyat l ea st th e o p p o rtu n ityto p rese n t sw o rn t e s t i mo n y , o ra tl e a s tb e y o n d th e d i s c o v e rys t a g e t o s u mma ryj u d g me n t , a n d i n s o me i ns t ance s i ncl uded r es pons i ve pl eadi ngs fr om the partys eeki ng t o enfor ce the w r i t t en a g re e m e n t. See, e. g. , G i antFood Stor es , I nc. v. Market

place Com m c’ ns C or

p. , 71 7 F. S u p p . 1 0 7 1 , 1 0 7 5 (M . D . P a. 19 8 9 ) (ap p ly ing ad m issi o n s ex ce p ti o n b ase d o n sw o rn a f f id a v it o f f o rm e r e m p lo y e e a n d lette rs f ro m c o rp o ra te o f

f ice rs o f p a rtyse e k in g to e n f o rc e w ritten a g re e m e n t); Sc o tt , 312 A . 2d at595- 96 ( decl i ni ng t o appl yadmi s s i on e x c e p tio n b e c a u se a lleg e d a d m iss io n d id n o t re late to d isp u ted iss u e ); Y uhas v. Schm i dt , 2 5 8 A .2 d 6 1 6 , 6 2 1 (P a . 1 9 6 9 ) (a d d re ss in g a d m iss io n in trial te stim o n y ); D u n n v . O rlo ff , 218 A . 2d 314, 317- 18 ( Pa. 1966) ( decl i ni ng t o fi nd r equi s i t e admi s s i on i n tr i al t es t i m ony a n d p lea d in g s b e c a u se a d m iss io n d id n o t re late to th e iss u e in d isp u te) ; U n ive rs a l F ilm E xchs
. , I nc. v. V i ki ng Theatr e C or

p. , 161 A . 2d 610, 612 ( Pa. 1960) ( percur i am) ( adopt i ng l ow ercourtopi ni on w hi ch dec l i ned t o fi nd admi s s i on i n tr i al t es t i m onyof par ol evi dence p ro p o n e n t re g a rd in g o u t-o f -c o u rt a d m iss io n s b yp ro p o n e n t o f w ritten a g re e m e n t); B oyd Esta te , 1 4 6 A .2 d 8 1 6 , 8 2 1 (P a . 1 9 5 8 ) (re ly in g o n a d m iss io n in sw o rn a n sw e r d e sp ite p a rty ’s f a ilu re to tes tifya t trial); A lli n g e r v . Me lvin , 172 A . 712, 713, 714- 15 ( Pa. 1934)11

(c iti n g p a rty ’s a d m iss io n in trial te stim o n y ); W ar d v. Zeigl er , 132 A . 798, 799 ( Pa. 1926) ( fi ndi ng par ol evi dence rul e i nappl i cabl e w her e pr oponentof w r i t t en agr eementt es t i fi ed
a t tr ia l th a t w ri tin g d id n o t r e f le c t p a rt ie s ’ e n tir e u n d e rs ta n d in g ). B eca us e D eak di d nothave the s ame oppor tuni tyt o pr ocee d t o tr i al , w e ca nnot fa u lth im sim p lyb ec au se h e d id n o t pro d u ce sw o rn tri al t esti m o n y . F u rth er, D o m ino ’s f i l e d n o r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g a n d i n s t e a d o p t e d t o s e e k d i s mi s s a l o f De a k ’ s c o u n t e r c l a i m, w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed, s o w e ca nnotfaul tD eak f orfai l i ng t o poi ntt o an a d m is s io n in a p le a d in g . I ndeed, i n a ca s e w i th evi dence of an a dm i s s i on s i m i l art o thatw hi ch D eak pl ed, the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our taff i rm ed the l ow ercourt ’ s or derdeny i ng j udgm enton th e p le a d in g s . C oa lO

perators , 269 A . 2d at674. T he courtconcl uded thata l ett erfr om the cha i rm an of the pr oponentof the w r i t t en agr eement , w hi ch contr adi ct ed the t erm s of the w r i t i ng, coul d s uffi ce a s “cl ear , pr eci s e and c onvi nci ng i n natur e. ” I d. ( quot at i ons o m itted). P arti cu larl y , the c o u rtn o ted th at th e lett er’s ad m issi b il ityan d the c h airm an ’s
a u th o ri ty to b in d th e c o rp o ra tio n re m a in e d to b e re s o lv e d . I d. A s s uch, “[o] n the pr es ent pos tur e of thi s r ecor d, i ti s i m pos s i bl e t o r es ol ve the i s s ue of f act . ” I d. S im il arly , assu m ing as w e m u st th at D ea k ’s asse rt ion s o f P ag n iano ’s
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a r e tru e , th e y c o u ld es t abl i s h cl ear , pr eci s e, and convi nci ng evi dence that th e P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d M a in e A g re e m e n ts d o n o t re f lec t th e p a rties ’ c o m p lete
u n d e rs ta n d in g . C

f
. In re Estate of

F i ckert , 337 A . 2d 592, 594 ( Pa. 1975) ( defi ni ng cl earT he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o not ed thatD eak’ s al l egat i ons of s t at ement s byotherform er 6 and curr entcorpor at e off i cer s of D om i no’ s al s o do notm eetthe cl ear , pr eci s e, and c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e sta n d a rd . T h e D istric t C o u rt’s tre a tm e n t o f th e se sta tem e n ts is fl aw ed in the sam e m ann er as i t s anal y si s of P agn i ano ’s st at em ent. E ven tho ug h these al l egat i ons m i rr orthos e found i ns uffi ci enti n U ni ver s alF i lm E

xchange s , the pr oponentof the admi s s i ons exce pt i on i n thatcas e had the opportuni tyt o pr es entevi dence attr i al and offe r ed nothi ng otherthan hi s ow n al l egat i ons . 161 A . 2d at612. W e ca nnotagr ee that the s ame r es ul ti s r equi r ed i n the pr ocedur al pos tur e of thi s cas e w her e D eak’ s al l egat i ons ca n b e su b stan ti ated thro u g h d isco v ery , d ep o sit ion s, an d ex am ination at tri al. W e a re a w a re th a t th e se sta tem e n ts w e re n o t co n tain e d in th e p lea d in g s u n d e r re v iew ; w e m e re ly ackn ow l edg e the m i sst ep in the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s analy si s. D e a k ’s p lea d in g o f

P a g n ian o ’s s tate m e n t alo n e su f f ice s to d e f

e a t D o m in o ’s R u le 12( c) m ot i on. I f true, and i f an a dm i s s i on attr i but abl e t o D om i no’ s , hers t at ementthat th e re sh o u ld b e n o tim e lim it o n th e d u ra tio n o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d M a in e A g re e m e n ts in d ic a te s th a t th e w ri tte n a g re e m e n ts m a yn o t r e f le c t th e e n tir e a g re e m e n t o f th e p a rt ie s . 12 a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e a s th a t w h ich is “ so c lea r, d ire c t, w e ig h ty , an d c o n v in c in g a s to enab l e the juryt o co m e t o a clearcon vict i on , w i tho ut hesi t ancy , of the truth o f the p reci se fa cts i n issue ”). A s s um i ng the ver aci tyof D eak’ s al l egat i ons , ther e w oul d be no t i m e l i m i ton the A g re e m e n ts , w h ic h c o n tr a d ic ts th e te rm lim its s ta te d th e re in . See C oa lO perators , 269 A .2 d a t 6 7 2 (f

in d in g a d m iss io n e x c e p tio n a p p lica b le w h e re a d m iss io n e x p re ss ly contr adi ct ed t erm s of w r i t t en agr eement ) . M or eover , the admi s s i on w as i s s ued, atthe
e a rl ie s t, in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 , w e ll a f te r a n yre le v a n t a g re e m e n t o r a d d e n d u m w a s e x e c u te d . Se e Sc o tt , 3 1 2 A .2 d a t 5 9 5 (a ss e rtin g th a t ad m iss io n m u st b e m a d e su b se q u e n t to e x e c u tio n o f

w ritten a g re e m e n t). W e a re n o t co n c e rn e d , in th is p ro c e d u ra l p o stu re , w ith the a d m issi b il ity , cre d ibil ity , o r bin d ing ef fe ct of P ag n iano ’s st atem en t; rathe r, tho se a re iss u e s b e tter r e so lv e d a t th e trial le v e l. See C oa lO perators , 2 6 9 A .2 d a t 6 7 4 ; see al so 6A c c o rd in g ly, th e p a ro l e v id e n c e ru le w o u ld n o t b a r i ts a d m is s io n . Se e Sc o tt , 312 A . 2d at

595. 13 G i antFood St or es , 7 1 7 F . S u p p . at 1 0 7 4 n .4 (n o tin g p a ro l ev id e n c e ru le in v o k e s s tate s ubs t ant i ve l aw , notfede r al evi dent i aryrul es ( ci t i ng B et zLabs. , I

nc. v. Hi nes , 647 F. 2d 4 0 2 , 4 0 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 1 )). Fur therm or e, al though Sc o tt ’ s l anguage appea r s t o r equi r e notonl yan admi s s i on of i ncompl et enes s butal s o an admi s s i on thatthe true agr eementw as om i t t ed bym i s t ake
oracc i dent , 312 A . 2d at595, the above
- ci t ed ca s es , w hi ch ac tual l yappl i ed the admi s s i ons e x c e p tio n , d o n o t m a k e th e s a m e d e m a n d , s ee, e. g. , G i antFood St or es , 717 F. Supp. at 1 0 7 6 -7 7 ; Y

uhas , 2 5 8 A .2 d a t 6 2 1 ; B o y d Esta te , 146 A . 2d at821. I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or dergr ant i ng D o m ino ’s m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t on the p lead ing s, v ac ate the o rde r gra n ti n g D o m ino ’s d e c la ra to ry re lie f

, a n d re m a n d f

o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .