Opinion ID: 183909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Direct Deposit Agreement

Text: The relevant language of the 1994 Agreement is Paychex is authorized to draw from Client's bank account as specified by Client, such amounts as are necessary to pay its employees. OSL posits that the district court erred by finding that this sentence was clear and unambiguous and by failing to give meaning to the second operative clausesuch amounts as are necessary to pay its employees. Specifically, OSL states that the second operative clause is ambiguous because it can be interpreted as either creating a duty for Paychex to oversee whether the withdrawals are necessary to pay OSL's employees or allowing Paychex to withdraw from the client's account blindly as long as the designated payroll contact so ordered. Paychex, on the other hand, states that OSL's interpretation of the contract language would completely negate the specific authorization to withdraw funds as specified by Client by requiring Paychex to question whether the requested payroll payments are necessary even when the client authorized them. According to Paychex, the simplest reading of the agreement is that Paychex is authorized to withdraw from OSL's account only what OSL specifies is necessary to make the payroll payments that OSL requested and no more. We find that the relevant contract language clearly and unambiguously establishes that it is the Client who has to specify the amounts that Paychex is authorized to withdraw from the Client's bank account. We read the second operative clausesuch amounts as are necessary to pay its employeesto modify the first and to create a limitation on the amount of money that Paychex is authorized to withdraw from the Client's account and not as creating an affirmative responsibility for Paychex to verify the amounts the Client specifies. We need not consider OSL's extrinsic evidence regarding the conversation Dr. Andreoni allegedly had with a Paychex representative in 1989 because we find that the provisions of the 1994 Agreement are clear and unambiguous. Law Debenture Trust Co., 595 F.3d at 466. New York law provides that `extrinsic and parol evidence is not admissible to create an ambiguity in a written agreement which is complete and clear and unambiguous upon its face.' S. Rd. Assocs., LLC v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 272, 793 N.Y.S.2d 835, 826 N.E.2d 806, 809 (2005) (citation omitted). We must, however, examine the entire contract and view the relevant language in the light of the obligation as a whole and the intention of the parties as manifested thereby. Riverside S. Planning Corp., 892 N.Y.S.2d 303, 920 N.E.2d at 363. OSL argues that the relevant contract language describes one of Paychex's duties under the contract because it appears in the paragraph entitled Services to be Performed. Specifically, OSL alleges that the language such amounts as are necessary to pay its employees creates an obligation for Paychex to verify that the amounts that it withdraws each pay period match the employees' salaries. OSL also asserts that Paychex was responsible for verifying the amounts that Connor specified because paragraph three (Client's Responsibility) does not list verifying such amounts as one of OSL's responsibilities. Although the 1994 Agreement is not a model of a comprehensive contract, we do not view the fact that the section titled Client's Responsibility does not list verifying the amounts that Paychex is authorized to withdraw as indicating that this task is Paychex's responsibility. If we examine the whole agreement, other sections of the contract create obligations with which OSL must comply. For example, in paragraph four, Client's Default, the parties create a duty for OSL to reimburse Paychex for all fees that it incurs as a result of OSL's failure to have sufficient funds in its accounts. Also, OSL's payment obligations are addressed in a separate paragraph. The fact that the Client's Responsibility paragraph does not list every one of OSL's obligations is not dispositive here. After examining the contract as a whole, we conclude that the writing evidences the intent to agree that it was OSL's responsibility to specify the amounts that Paychex was authorized to withdraw from the accounts.