Opinion ID: 1735181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The global transaction

Text: ¶ 27. It would be difficult to envision a transaction more global than the sale of assets in the case sub judice. The Employment Contract was specifically made an integral part of the Asset Purchase Agreement. Section 1.2 of the Asset Purchase Agreement states: The following schedules shall be appended to this agreement and shall form an integral part thereof, namely:    Schedule 8.1(k)  Form of Employment Contract ¶ 28. Stated another way, without the Asset Purchase Agreement, there would have been no Employment Contract, and without the Employment Contract, there would have been no Asset Purchase Agreement. Both agreements were not only part of the same overall transaction (as in Mounger ), but were by their very terms part of the same agreement. The Asset Purchase Agreement incorporated the Employment Contract and made it an integral part thereof. It would therefore seem clear that the terms of the Employment Contract became terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement. Interestingly, it is Sullivan himself who most forcefully makes this point in paragraph 6 of his complaint. He describes his Employment Contract as further consideration for Plaintiff's patents. In his fraud claim, Sullivan says he was fraudulently induced into entering into the Asset Purchase Agreement and selling his patents in return for false promises of consideration, including the [Employment] Contract, which it is now obvious the Defendants had no intention of honoring. ¶ 29. It is also worth noting again that in the Complaint's only Breach of Contract count, Sullivan alleges that Defendants breached the Employment Contract. No allegation is found therein that Defendants breached the Asset Purchase Agreement. ¶ 30. The Employment Contract, which the parties specifically agreed was an integral part of the Asset Purchase Agreement, contained an arbitration provision. Therefore, applying a familiar geometric theorem (A=B; B=C, therefore A=C), [3] the arbitration provision of the Employment Contract was also an integral part of the Asset Purchase Agreement. ¶ 31. In reaching our decision today, we also considered the following: (1) According to the specific terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, execution of the Employment Contract by Sullivan was a condition precedent to the obligation of Sullivan, Protex Weatherproofing, and ATX to close the purchase. (2) The Employment Contract was not only an exhibit to the Asset Purchase Agreement, but was specifically made an integral part of the Asset Purchase Agreement. (3) The Employment Contract and the Asset Purchase Agreement were both dated July 1, 2001. (4) In the Complaint, Sullivan characterizes his Employment Contract as part of the consideration for the Asset Purchase Agreement. (5) Both Sullivan and Protex Weatherproofing, Inc., signed the Employment Contract, which contained the arbitration provision. (6) Although ATX did not sign the Employment Contract, its name is included in the file path at the bottom of the document: (O: Lawyers JLD ATX Telecom Inc Protex employment contract  rudy2.wpd). (7) The Asset Purchase Agreement identifies Protex Weatherproofing Inc., as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ATX, for the purpose of completing the transaction contemplated by the said letter of intent. (8) The Asset Purchase Agreement says the letter of intent provided that this wholly-owned subsidiary of ATX was formed for the purpose of purchasing the assets of Protex. ¶ 32. Sullivan makes no credible claim that his dispute under the Employment Contract is not subject to arbitration. We hold that all of Sullivan's claims are subject to the arbitration provision in the Employment Contract.