Opinion ID: 3171236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of Cap Letters

Text: Defendants argued extensively in their briefs that the cap letters are part of the Agreements or can serve as extrinsic evidence of dealings with Retirees. Retirees disagree. 3 Though Retirees acknowledged that the Agreements lack clear and express language vesting benefits, the Supreme Court did not direct judgment on this issue. No. 12-3329 Tackett, et al. v. M&G Polymers USA, et al. Page 8 “Whether a given document is part of a written contract is a question of fact.” E.g., Thomasville Furniture Indus., Inc. v. JGR, Inc., 3 F. App’x 467, 473 (6th Cir. 2001). Though Defendants did not identify any particular Yard-Man inferences that influenced the district court’s conclusions, they argue that Tackett Bench Trial was decided in the “shadow of Yard-Man.” On its face, the district court determined, independent of Yard-Man or its inferences, that the cap letters were not part of the Agreements. See Tackett II, 733 F.3d at 597; Tackett Bench Trial, 2011 WL 3438489, at –19. However, given the district court’s stated confusion over our Yard-Man instruction, see Tackett Bench Trial, 2011 WL 3438489, at −14, the extent to which the district court was influenced by Yard-Man remains unclear. It is similarly unclear whether the parties were influenced by Yard-Man during the trial. For example, they may not have introduced certain evidence or arguments because of Yard-Man’s mandate. Now that Yard-Man has been abrogated, additional evidence or arguments may be relevant to an inquiry under ordinary contract principles. Thus, we remand so the district court may determine whether the cap letters, or other documents, are part of the Agreement or may otherwise serve as extrinsic evidence.