Opinion ID: 1387072
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alternative Basis for Incorporation of the Indemnity Clause: Express Agreement.

Text: Notwithstanding the above analysis, ARCO's indemnity clause may be part of the parties' contract provided they expressly agreed to it. That is, if the indemnity provision was expressly agreed to by Western, and thus the confirmation was merely a codification of the parties' earlier agreement, the clause is binding and section 2-207 analysis is unnecessary. [24] Whether ARCO and Western expressly agreed to the indemnity clause is a factual question. The entirety of the evidence presented by ARCO concerning the formation of its contract with Western consisted of an affidavit by a former order clerk stating that documents acknowledging or confirming a customer's order were sent to Western. Even ARCO acknowledged the absence of evidence concerning contract formation in its briefing of the issue of waiver: Had Western ... raised the issue about its negotiations with ARCO ... or otherwise called attention to this issue, ARCO ... would have had the opportunity to conduct discovery regarding the course of dealing and/or actual negotiations between the parties. Since Western ... conceded that the indemnity provision was a part of the contract, however, there was no need to try to develop such additional evidence. Since there is an absence of evidence of an oral agreement, it can not be determined whether the parties expressly negotiated for and agreed to the indemnity clause. Thus, we conclude that summary judgment on this alternative theory is not appropriate.