Opinion ID: 694171
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Instruct Regarding Oral Contracts

Text: 27 Trans-Rim contends that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the law of oral contracts. Trans-Rim offered Plaintiff's Proposed Instruction Numbers 5 and 18, 6 pertaining to its claim that Coors and Trans-Rim entered into an oral contract in December 1988 not to shop Project Alaska and not to disclose confidential information regarding Project Alaska to third parties. Trans-Rim asserts that the jury should have been instructed on Trans-Rim's breach of oral contract cause of action because it accrued before Coors Company and Trans-Rim entered into a written contract in May 1989. 28 This court reviews a district court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction de novo. Watson v. Blankinship, 20 F.3d 383, 392 (10th Cir.1994). In reviewing instructions given to the jury,  'we consider all the jury heard, and from the standpoint of the jury, decide not whether the charge was faultless in every particular, but whether the jury was misled in any way and whether it had understanding of the issues and duties to determine these issues.'  Resolution Trust Corp. v. Stone, 998 F.2d 1534, 1549 (10th Cir.1993) (citation omitted). Issuance of erroneous instructions or omission of proper instructions requires reversal  'only if we have substantial doubt whether the instructions, taken together, properly guided the jury in its deliberations.'  Considine v. Newspaper Agency Corp., 43 F.3d 1349, 1365 (10th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). 29 The district court refused to instruct the jury on the law of oral contracts because it determined that the Mutual Confidential Disclosure Agreement (Confidentiality Agreement) entered into between Coors and Trans-Rim on May 2, 1989 contained an integration clause which obliterated all prior express agreements, oral or written, between the parties. 7 We agree. Paragraph Five of the Confidentiality Agreement provides as follows: 30 This Agreement constitutes the underlying entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all other communications, oral or written, relating to Confidential Information. 31 Under Colorado law, an integration clause will limit future contractual disputes to issues relating to the reciprocal obligations expressly set forth in the executed document. Keller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 819 P.2d 69, 72 (Colo.1991). When parties engage in arms-length negotiations and enter into an agreement intended to represent a final and complete understanding, the terms of that agreement will be enforced. Id. 32 We conclude that under the explicit terms of this integration clause, all prior agreements between the parties merged and the Confidentiality Agreement governed the entire course of dealings between the Trans-Rim and Coors. As such, Trans-Rim was not entitled to prosecute a separate claim based on prior oral understandings.