Opinion ID: 2972779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Life Of The Part

Text: Plaintiffs argue that it is an industry custom to pay commissions for “the life of a part” and that it was Mr. Chase’s understanding of the contract that even if defendants terminated him, he would still receive such commissions. He indicates that when he was fired, numerous contracts with GM were still in effect, providing business to defendants. On the contrary, defendants contend the agreement expressly carved out only one narrow exception in which commissions were payable for the “life of the part,” which was in the event that Mr. Chase was unable to perform sales activities because of his incapacity or death. 6 An agent who participates in the negotiation and secures the agreement of a given contract of sale is the “procuring cause.” See Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Blazer Int’l Corp., 741 F.Supp. 650, 653 (E.D. Mich. 1990). 11 Nos. 04-1613/1671 Chase, et al. v. Matsu Mfg., Inc., et al. Generally, “oral evidence of prior or contemporaneous understandings is inadmissible to vary or contradict an unambiguous writing which is intended to memorialize the complete agreement between the parties.” Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Blazer Int’l Corp., 741 F.Supp. 650, 654 (E.D. Mich. 1990). Under Michigan law, the integration language of the written agreement conclusively establishes the finality and completeness of the written agreement. See Cook v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., 210 F.3d 653, 656 (6th Cir. 2000). This Court has previously held that “Michigan’s parol evidence rule bars the use of extrinsic evidence to contradict the terms of a written contract intended to be the final and complete expression of the contracting parties’ agreement.” Wonderland Shopping Center Venture Limited Partnership v. CDC Mortgage Capital, Inc., 274 F.3d 1085 (6th Cir. 2001)(applying Michigan law). The district court therefore correctly held that Mr. Chase’s subjective understanding of the agreement “cannot be relied upon to determine the parties’ intent because the words of the agreement are clear and unambiguous, and have a definite meaning that does not support Chase’s interpretation.” Accordingly, the district court properly interpreted the written agreement to conclude that plaintiffs are not entitled to “life of the part” commissions.