Opinion ID: 720636
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lawful Termination

Text: 36 Evian's complaint sought declaratory relief as to the lawful termination of the distribution agreement. The district court ruled on this claim as a matter of law, and found that the Agreement had expired of its own terms no later than January 31, 1990 11 and that the relationship between the plaintiff as supplier and the defendant as distributor was lawfully terminated. Valley contests this ruling. 37 We agree with the district court's disposition. Paragraph 2 of the Agreement clearly specifies that it is valid for a period of one (1) year, and further provides that 38 [a]t the end of the initial term of one (1) year ..., the Distributor [Valley] shall have the right to exercise an option to renew this Agreement for an additional period of one (1) year, provided the distributor has [met a quota] ..., except in the event this Agreement is terminated by the Company.... 39 Evian and Valley entered into the Agreement in January 1988. By its own terms, even with the single renewal provided for in the contract, the Agreement could have lasted no longer than January 1990. 12 40 Valley claims that the Agreement was renewed beyond its specified terms, because of a claimed understanding that the relationship would continue so long as Valley met its yearly quotas, and because Evian employees gave Valley a 1990 quota in exchange for the December 1989 water purchase. We are unpersuaded. The contract plainly states: This Agreement and the terms hereof may be changed only by [a] writing signed by both the Company and the Distributor. This Agreement ... may not be changed orally. The Agreement is clear that only one renewal was allowed, and that the maximum term of the arrangement was two years. A further renewal would have constituted a modification of the Agreement's terms, and no modification was ever made in the manner specified by the contract. 41