Opinion ID: 2390283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Prior Letter Agreement

Text: Defendants first argue that the trial court erred by granting Farley's motion in limine to exclude evidence concerning a letter agreement between the parties dated March 4, 1986. That letter set forth the intent of both parties to develop the waterfront property in Portland. The Superior Court concluded that the parol evidence rule barred admission of the letter agreement due to the subsequently agreed on purchase and sale agreement. At issue are portions of the letter, omitted from the subsequent purchase and sale agreement, detailing what would happen in the event that the property was not rezoned or the plan was disapproved. In excluding that evidence, the court found that: [t]he totality of the circumstances, here, leads the court to conclude that the Purchase and Sale Agreement is fully integrated. The court holds it to be the entire agreement of the parties which has merged within its four corners all the prior negotiations, expressions of intent and understandings of the parties. The parol evidence rule operates to exclude from judicial consideration extrinsic evidence offered to vary, add to, or contradict the terms of an integrated written agreement. Clarke v. Dipietro, 525 A.2d 623, 625 (Me.1987). Application of the rule requires an initial finding that the writing was intended by the parties to integrate their understandings with respect to the subject matter of the agreement. Connell v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 436 A.2d 408, 412 (Me.1981). We hold that the trial court correctly concluded that the purchase and sale agreement was intended to be a full and complete integration of the parties' agreement. First and foremost, the agreement itself contained the following clause evidencing its completeness: Interpretation and Binding Effect. This instrument . . . sets forth the entire agreement between the parties.. . . The agreement was signed on the very next page by Christopher Fleming, the authorized signatory of the General Partner [Webb/St. James Ventures II]. In addition, the detailed and comprehensive nature of the agreement further illustrates that the parties intended the document to constitute a full and complete expression of their transaction.