Opinion ID: 1356124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Integration of the Contract

Text: Mortenson contends because the purchase order fulfilled the basic requirements of contracting under the U.C.C., it constituted a fully integrated contract. As a result, Mortenson argues the terms of the license, including the limitation of remedies clause, were not part of the contract and, thus, are not enforceable. Timberline counters that the parties did not intend the purchase order to be an exclusive recitation of the contract terms, and points to the absence from the purchase order of several key details of the agreement. Timberline argues, and the trial court and Court of Appeals agreed, that the purchase order did not prevent the terms of the license from becoming part of the contract or render the limitation of remedies clause unenforceable. Whether the parties intend a written document to be a final expression of the terms of the agreement is a question of fact. Emrich v. Connell, 105 Wash.2d 551, 556, 716 P.2d 863 (1986). In determining whether an agreement is integrated, the court may consider evidence of negotiations and circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract. Denny's Restaurants, Inc. v. Security Union Title Ins. Co., 71 Wash.App. 194, 202, 859 P.2d 619 (1993) (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 216 (1981)). [I]f reasonable minds can reach but one conclusion on an issue of fact, it may be determined on summary judgment. Allen v. State, 118 Wash.2d 753, 760, 826 P.2d 200 (1992). RCW 62A.2-204(1) provides, [a] contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract. Whether the purchase order qualifies as a contract at all does not resolve the issue of whether it is an integrated contract. Even if we assume the purchase order could, standing alone, constitute a complete contract under the U.C.C., such was not the case here. The language of the purchase order makes this clear. For example, the purchase order sets an hourly rate for Timberline's provision of software support, but does not specify how many hours of support Timberline would provide. The purchase order also states: [a]t some future date should Timberline upgrade `Bid Day' to a windows version, M.A. Mortenson would be able to upgrade to this system with Timberline crediting existing software purchase toward that upgrade on a pro-rated basis to be determined later.  Clerk's Papers at 206 (emphasis added). Finally, the purchase order does not contain an integration clause. The presence of an integration clause strongly supports a conclusion that the parties' agreement was fully integrated.... Olsen Media v. Energy Sciences, Inc., 32 Wash.App. 579, 584, 648 P.2d 493 (1982). Here, the absence of such a clause further supports the conclusion that the purchase order was not the complete agreement between the parties. The trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly determined the purchase order did not constitute an integrated contract.