Opinion ID: 2637915
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Existence of Contract for Employment

Text: [¶ 10] The principal issue we confront, and the one that affects all others, is whether the district court erred in finding as a matter of fact and law that Loya was an at-will employee with no definite term of employment. Schuler contends that the trial court properly looked only to the letter agreement dated August 28, 1995, and that this Court, too, may not look beyond that agreement. However, we disagree with that proposition. We have embraced the partial integration rule, which allows parol evidence with respect to a part of a whole transaction not reduced to writing where such evidence does not contradict or vary the terms of the written instrument. Lewis v. Roper, 579 P.2d 434, 438 (Wyo.1978). Here, the letter agreement does not purport to be an integration of all the oral discussions had between Loya and Schuler. Indeed, the letter forthrightly states that many details are yet to be worked out. It is also clear that the contract would not be complete until such time as Loya signed a non-competition agreement. The terms that are in the letter are not inconsistent with the parol evidence which Loya proposes to offer for submission to a jury. Moreover, it would be a rational conclusion that the letter agreement, by itself, guaranteed Loya employment for at least a period exceeding one year, since Loya could not benefit from Schuler's promise to pay the costs of his relocation back to Vermont until he had completed one year of work for Jackson Signs. We conclude that the letter agreement, when read in conjunction with the non-competition agreement and the parol evidence Loya sought to present, creates genuine issues of material fact which must be submitted to a jury concerning whether or not a contract of employment existed and, if so, what the terms of the contract were.