Opinion ID: 70764
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Integration of the Agreements

Text: 42 Ameritrust argues that the district court erred in determining that all the documents executed on June 30, 1986, constituted one integrated contract. Ameritrust contends that the note stands alone as a single, integrated contract and that the put option agreement cannot vary the terms of this contract. In support of its argument, Ameritrust relies on the following language in the note: 43 This Note may not be changed or terminated orally, but only by an agreement in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification, or discharge is sought, with such agreement being effective and binding only upon attachment hereto. 44 Ameritrust contends that under the terms of this modification clause, the put option agreement, which was not attached to the promissory note, does not modify the terms of the note. 45 In support of its finding that all the documents executed on June 30, 1986, constituted one integrated contract, the district court relied on Manry v. Hendricks, 11 in which the court held: A contract is not necessarily contained in a single paper, and our Code provides in Sec. 38-502 that all contemporaneous writings shall be admissible to explain each other. Code Sec. 38-502 is now codified at O.C.G.A. Sec. 24-6-3(a), which provides: All contemporaneous writings shall be admissible to explain each other. Thus, as an evidentiary matter, all documents executed on June 30, 1986, are admissible to explain the promissory note. 46 The district court also relied on Wardlaw v. Woodruff, 12 in which the court held: Where a promissory note is given contemporaneously with a written agreement between the same parties which states the consideration of the note, the two instruments constitute one contract and are to be construed together. While the put option agreement does not state the consideration of the promissory note, the subscription agreement does. The promissory note, the subscription agreement, and the partnership agreement cross-reference each other. All of the documents signed on June 30, 1986, were signed contemporaneously and appear as parts of a whole. 47 Ameritrust relies on Irvindale Farms, Inc. v. W.O. Pierce Dairy, Inc. 13 In Irvindale, the court, relying on Wardlaw, held that the seller's fulfillment of a provision in a sales contract was a condition precedent to the seller's right to recover on a series of notes executed by the buyer. In so holding, the court reasoned: The contract referred to and described the notes and stated the terms and provisions of the sale, and the notes referred to the contract and stated that they were given subject to its terms. In these circumstances, the notes and contract are to be construed together as constituting one contract. 14 Ameritrust argues that the note at issue in this case does not refer to the put option agreement; thus, the two cannot be construed together as one contract. Contrary to Ameritrust's assertion, the court in Irvindale did not go so far as to hold that a note must refer to a contract for the two to be construed together. While a note's reference to a contract certainly supports such a construction, Irvindale does not hold that the reference is necessary to such a construction. 48 Ameritrust also relies on Kiser v. Godwin, 15 in which the court declined to enforce a letter agreement pursuant to which the buyer agreed to pay more than specified in the contemporaneous sales contract. In concluding that the letter agreement was not a part of the sales contract, the court relied on an express merger clause in the sales contract: 49 The merger clause in the contract of sale answers these contentions. The parties provided against the use of any evidence, other than the writing itself, as to their intent in the transaction. The paper itself, together with any modification attached and signed by both parties, is to be the sole and entire agreement. It is also provided that only the promises, representations, or inducements made in the writing shall be binding upon the parties. 16 50 The court distinguished Manry, noting that the contract at issue in Manry did not have an express merger clause. 51 This case is distinguishable from Kiser in that the note at issue here does not contain an express merger clause like that in Kiser. Ameritrust relies on the modification clause; while this clause provides that any modification must be attached to the note, it says nothing about the note being the sole and entire agreement. Thus, Kiser does not support Ameritrust's position. 52 Finally, Ameritrust relies on a line of cases that, like Craig v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 17 stand for the proposition that the maker of a note will not be allowed to prove that his obligation to pay was dependent or conditional upon the promisee's compliance with a prior or contemporaneous agreement not expressed in the note, unless the execution of the note was induced by fraud, accident, or mistake. Craig and the cases cited are not apropos to any issue in this case. Craig and those cases merely stand for the proposition that where parties have reduced to writing what appears to be a complete and certain agreement, it will in the absence of fraud, accident, or mistake be conclusively presumed that the writing contains the entire contract. 18 This is merely a statement of the parole evidence rule which is not involved here. 53 After careful consideration, we hold that the district court's conclusion that all of the documents executed on June 30, 1986, constitute one contract is supported by the law and the facts of this case. Thus, it is irrelevant that the put option agreement was not attached to the promissory note in accordance with the modification clause.