Matthews v. Drew Chemical Corporation

475 F.2d 146 (5th Cir. 1973)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P sued D in diversity for wrongful discharge. D sought to justify its having fired P by showing that on May 10, 1968, he had signed a contractual 'memorandum of employment' that in either of two alternative ways prevented him from prevailing. The contract was alleged to have given both parties the right to terminate employment by merely giving notice to the other party. D insisted that the contract required P to submit work reports and that P explicitly refused to obey a direct order to submit his reports to a named district manager, thus breaching the employment agreement. P did not dispute the existence of the written 'memorandum of employment.' P claimed there were additional oral agreements that were entered into during February of 1966, well before the writing was signed, and that remained in effect at all times thereafter. D claimed that an express integration clause contained in the written agreement barred the introduction of parol evidence regarding the terms and conditions of P's employment, such evidence was admitted. When the evidence was offered, the trial judge was thus forced to interrupt the trial, send the jury from the courtroom, hear the argument, and then rule from the bench on the admissibility of the parol evidence. The court determined that the writing was equivocal and it will permit oral testimony to determine what was the intent. The court then determined it was not the intent of the parties to embody their entire agreement in that writing. It allowed the testimony and P got the verdict and D appealed.