Court Opinion

ID: 9716939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:54:12.653291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:50.187304
License: Public Domain

CRONE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority's conclusion that Jacobs's oral promise to Hinkel regarding a severance package is "barred from consideration by the parol evidence rule." Op. at 768. I do so for two reasons.
First, I believe that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the parties intended for Jacobs's written job offer to Hinkel to be completely integrated, i.e., a "final and complete expression of all the parties' agreements[.]1 Id. at 769 (emphasis added) Although not conclu*772sive, the offer-a one-page document with six bullet points for a position paying $120,000 per year-does not contain an integration clause. More persuasive is its statement that Hinkel's vacation terms were yet to be determined, which indicates to me that the parties had not yet reached agreement on that issue. Based on the foregoing, a factfinder reasonably could conclude that the offer is more akin to a memorandum of understanding and represents only a partial integration of the parties' agreements, and that therefore the parol evidence rule would not apply to bar consideration of Jacobs's oral promise regarding the severance package.
Second, the terms of the severance package do not vary from or contradict the terms of the written offer, but merely cover that which was not covered in the offer.2 As such, even assuming that the offer is completely integrated, the terms of the severance package would not be barred by the parol evidence rule. See Malo v. Gilman, 177 Ind.App. 365, 368, 379 N.E.2d 554, 557 and n. 5 (1978) ("[P larol evidence may be admitted to supply an omission in the terms of the contract.... Using parol evidence to supply an omission will not modify the written agreement, but merely adds to it."). Therefore, I would reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sataria and remand for further proceedings.

. The majority concedes that the offer "leaves one term to be decided" but paradoxically concludes that it "constituted a final representation of the parties' agreement[.]" Op. at 770. I fail to see how a contract can be *772completely integrated if it expressly defers agreement on a particular issue.

. The record before us contains no designated evidence contradicting Hinkel's assertion that Jacobs promised him "a year's worth of salary and insurance coverage if he were ever terminated involuntarily[.]" Op. at 767.