Summary of Esbensen v. Userware International, Inc.
Facts: P was an employee of D; P claims he was wrongfully terminated and was fired for no good cause; there was a one year employment contract but there was a not a good cause requirement for firing; P sought to introduce evidence of oral assurances he was allegedly given by D that the contract would be perpetually renewed as long as he performed his job competently, but T.C. did not allow
Issue: Was the employment contract terminable at will
Holding The written contract is silent on the acceptable grounds for termination and the contract does not state that it is terminable at will.
Issue: Whether the written contract was fully integrated
Holding: The contract was only partially integrated and it did not explicitly provide the complete agreement.
Rule: If writing is intended by the parties as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement the contract is fully or completely integrated and parol evidence is inadmissible even to add terms not inconsistent with the writing
Issue: Whether the parol evidence offered proved a consistent oral understand
Holding: Parol evidence should have been admitted
Rule: A party should be able to demonstrate an express oral agreement contrary to the term which would otherwise be presumed or implied if the contract is absent an express statement to that term.