Court Opinion

ID: 9545793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:19:38.63242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:33.462294
License: Public Domain

WARREN, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree with the result in this case. I disagree, however, with the majority’s statement that the question whether a writing is integrated is decided as a factual matter by the trial judge and that we cannot review that decision except to decide whether it is supported by substantial evidence.
Whether a writing is integrated is a legal conclusion. As such, a ruling on whether an agreement is integrated is reviewable on appeal as a question of law.
The question in this case is whether the oral agreement about when the collateral agreement would terminate is inconsistent with the written agreement. If it is not, it must be decided whether there is separate consideration for the oral agreement or whether, in the light of the circumstances, the oral agreement is one which the parties might naturally agree upon separately.
The fact that the agreement had no termination date is not necessarily inconsistent with the existence of a termination date. Evidence of a termination date does not contradict an express contractual term in this case. However, it is clear that, if the parties had intended the collateral agreement to be other than open-ended as to duration, a term limiting its length would naturally be included in the writing. As such, it *337would not “naturally” be agreed upon separately from the written agreement.
There was no evidence that there was separate consideration for the oral agreement.