Opinion ID: 901823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Written Listing Agreement Supersedes Oral Negotiations

Text: [¶ 6.] Bootjack Ranch contends the 180-day tail provision does not apply to the sale to Trask because Kjerstad Realty did not substantially perform its obligation under the listing agreement. Although Bootjack Ranch also asserts Kjerstad Realty told Hanson prior to signing the agreement that she could terminate it at any time with no penalty, the circuit court correctly determined the written 180-day tail provision controlled. South Dakota law provides that [t]he execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument. SDCL 53-8-5. Bootjack Ranch argued the parol agreement was the inducing and moving cause of the written contract `and where the contract was executed upon the faith of the parol agreement, such evidence is admissible.' See McCollam v. Littau, 307 N.W.2d 144, 145 (S.D.1981) (quoting De Pue v. McIntosh, 26 S.D. 42, 127 N.W. 532 (1910)). However, as noted in McCollam, this rule should not be `extended to cases in which the written contract is complete and unambiguous and the consideration contractual in its nature.' Id. (quoting Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Swier, 50 S.D. 436, 443, 210 N.W. 671, 673 (1926)). Neither party argues the contract is ambiguous or an incomplete agreement. Because the alleged oral modification occurred before the written agreement was made, the written agreement controls and defines the obligations of the parties.