Opinion ID: 2361672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of an Integrated Agreement

Text: The fraud exception aside, the Harrimans' testimony will be admissible at trial under a second, equally well established exception to the parol evidence rule. In determining whether an agreement is completely or just partially integrated, a court may resort to evidence of negotiations of the parties preceding the written contract ... or to the mutual understandings of the parties at the time of entering into the contract. Waxler v. Waxler, 458 A.2d 1219, 1224 (Me.1983). The Harrimans' testimony concerns the negotiations preceding the signing of the printed release form and goes directly to the question of whether the parties intended that form to be a complete integration of their agreement. In fact, the handwritten addendum on the back of the printed release form provides evidentiary support for the Harrimans' position that the parties did not intend the printed release form to be a complete integration. On these facts, the Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment. While it is true that the determination of whether an agreement is totally or partially integrated is a matter of law ... [d]isputes over the existence of a binding agreement or the substance of negotiations present classic issues for the factfinder. All Hit Radio, Inc. v. Communications Broadcasting Affiliates, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 765, 766 (D.Me.1984) (citations omitted). See also Zamore v. Whitten, 395 A.2d 435, 440 (Me.1978). We emphasize that our decision to vacate the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment is required by the particular circumstances of this case. Summary judgment, although a useful and salutary device in many cases, was inappropriate on the pleadings and depositions before the court.