Court Opinion

ID: 9488564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:48:55.953185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:57.784851
License: Public Domain

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
With respect, the court finds an ambiguity in this case where there is none. Under paragraph 15 of the relevant agreement, the guarantors are to inform the bank about any efforts that they make concerning the collection of receivables. If they make no such efforts, or if they have nothing to report, then they are under no obligation. The guarantors want somehow to convert an undertaking by them into an undertaking by the bank, an undertaking, moreover, that creates a condition to the bank’s collection from the guarantors. This “interpretation” adds terms to the written agreement, it does not clarify an ambiguity. Even if the relevant words were ambiguous, they simply will not bear the meaning that appellants wish to-ascribe to them.
The parol evidence rule is an important guarantee of the integrity of written contracts and such contracts, especially ones with integration clauses, ought not to be supplemented except in cases of real ambiguity where the words create a quandary as to them meaning.
I would therefore affirm the district court.