Court Opinion

ID: 9443962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:36:25.877298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:39.668793
License: Public Domain

RUSSELL, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
The vice in the judgment of the trial court stems from the failure of the court in its findings to give effect to the rule of law that a party signing an otherwise enforceable agreement will not generally be heard to assert that such agreement was not intended to have any legally binding effect. Contracts can not thus be voided. The court had theretofore properly recognized this rule by rejecting the evidence of one of the individual defendants that plaintiff’s agent said the signing “was merely a formality * * * and he assured me that they would (never) bother us in any way, so with those stipulations and walking with him we signed the thing * * On the other hand, as required by the rule that parties are presumed to intend to be, and are, bound by their signed agreements, and the policy of the law which *84requires that all attendant and surrounding circumstances be considered in determining the extent of liability assumed by the signer of a contract, some portion of which is left blank, the facts here show that it was well understood that the guaranty agreement had reference to the factoring agreement. The guaranty agreement was attached to, and physically a part of, the factoring agreement. They were a part of the same transaction. Indeed, under the circumstances, it could not reasonably be said to relate to any other matter, and no such contention was even presented. Consequently, there being no proper evidence or basis upon which the guarantors could escape liability and, on the contrary, the guaranty instrument and the contract as a whole being sufficient to evidence the guarantor’s liability, judgment should have gone against the individual defendant.