Opinion ID: 1613673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Trial Court's Interpretation of the Stipulation.

Text: The Cutlers next argue the trial court erred in interpreting the stipulation entered into between Mash and the Cutlers. The stipulation was entered into shortly after Mash filed his original complaint. The stipulation provided in pertinent part as follows: .... 2. On or before September 15, 1988, the defendants [Cutlers] shall in the presence of plaintiff [Mash] or his representatives, identify and deliver to plaintiff at defendant Dan Cutler's ranch plaintiff's 151 head of bred cattle with 143 calves at side. Defendant shall arrange with plaintiff's agent, John Dean, for a mutually satisfactory day for delivery of possession. Deviation from above numbers shall be subject to paragraph # 6 TT. 3. The 1988 calves shall be divided according to the division agreement as set forth in plaintiff's complaint. 4. Seventy-six (76) of the cows shall be three-year-old registered Simmental cattle and the registration papers for the same shall be signed and delivered to plaintiff by defendants on the same date possession of the cattle is given. 5. Seventy-five (75) of the cows shall be two-year-old cross-bred cattle. 6. The remaining issues in the lawsuit if not settled shall be presented to the court for determination. Any discrepancy in number of animals to be delivered will be a remaining issue to be decided in later proceedings. TT. .... (Underscored portion handwritten). The Cutlers argue the handwritten language means the actual number of animals to be delivered was to be decided in later proceedings. In other words, according to the Cutlers, the stipulation was not to bind Cutlers to a specific number of cattle to be delivered. They argue they are entitled to deduct a 3% death loss based on the previous oral agreement. Addressing the merits of Cutlers' argument, SDCL 53-8-5 (1990) states: The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument. See also McLaughlin Elec. Supply v. American Empire Ins., 269 N.W.2d 766, 769 (S.D.1978) (citing Kindley v. Williams, 76 S.D. 225, 76 N.W.2d 227, 57 A.L.R.2d 1070 (1956)); Big Band, Inc., 87 S.D. 24, 202 N.W.2d at 122-23; SDCL 53-8-6 (1990). As such, the Cutlers cannot seek to introduce elements of the previous agreement between the parties which are inconsistent with the later memorialized agreement. See generally E. Farnsworth, Contracts § 7.3, at 454 (1982); 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 399. Thus, their attempt to reintroduce the 3% death loss as contemplated in the original agreement is not persuasive. The stipulation made no mention of any permissible death loss. Since the stipulation provided for no death loss, Cutlers were bound to deliver 151 cattle as set out therein. Moreover, the Cutlers' argument that the number of cattle to be delivered was to be decided later in court is meritless. The trial court determined the Cutlers were to deliver 151 head of cattle as stated in the stipulation. Therefore, the Cutlers were bound to deliver 151 head of cattle.