Opinion ID: 406059
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Oceanic's Liability

Text: 16 Oceanic's contention that summary judgment as to its liability was improper need not detain us long. Oceanic's argument is that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Oceanic orally disclosed to CTI in the lease negotiations that Oceanic was acting not on its own account but solely as agent for another. The district court properly rejected this argument as a matter of law. 17 The general rule is that the terms of an unambiguous, integrated contract may not be varied by parol evidence. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213 (1979). As this principle is applied to the question whether a person who has signed a contract may escape liability for its breach on the ground that he was acting solely as an agent, the general corollary is that (i)f the fact of agency does not appear in an integrated contract, an agent who appears as a party thereto can not introduce extrinsic evidence to show that he is not a party.... 7 Restatement (Second) of Agency § 323(3) (1957). New York law, which the lease specified was to be controlling, conforms to these general rules. 8 See, e.g., Sabo v. Delman, 3 N.Y.2d 155, 161, 164 N.Y.S.2d 714, 717 (1957) (The parol evidence rule forbids proof of extrinsic evidence to contradict or vary the terms of a written instrument....); Meyer v. Redmond, 205 N.Y. 478, 98 N.E. 906, 908 (1912) (Even where (the agent) discloses the name of his principal, if he signs a written contract in his own name merely, which contract does not upon its face show that he was acting as the agent of another, ... he will be personally bound thereby.) (quoting, with emphasis, Magee v. Atkinson, 2 Mees. & Wels. R. 440); see also John Minder & Son v. L. D. Schreiber Co., 73 F.Supp. 477, 480-81 (S.D.N.Y.1947) (discussing New York law). 18 The undisputed facts of the present case place it squarely within these general principles. The lease is, as the district court found, unambiguous. See Restatement of Agency § 323, comment a (ambiguity vel non is a question to be decided by the judge). The lease was quite plainly an integrated contract, as Clause 15 provided that (t)his lease contains the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and may not be amended, altered or modified except by a writing signed by both parties. Oceanic concedes that (t)he lease does not state the fact of (Oceanic's) agency nor does it identify (Oceanic's) principal. (Brief on appeal at 3). Since Oceanic signed the unambiguous, integrated agreement in its own name and the fact of agency nowhere appears therein, Oceanic is not entitled to introduce evidence to show that it was not the real lessee. Summary judgment as to Oceanic's liability was properly granted.