Informe académico: Caso Habets V. Swanson

INFORME ACADÉMICO: HABETS V. SWANSON

Transcripción, Traducción Literaria, Análisis de Derecho Comparado (Teoría del Daño) e IRAC

[pic 1]

1. Transcripción Exacta (Original en Inglés)[pic 2]

[pic 3]

HABETS v. SWANSON

303 Mont. 410, 16 P.3d 1035

Montana Supreme Court, 2000

Facts: The Farmers Union Central Exchange (Cenex) sold to Glen Habets seven miles of subsurface pipeline, which stretched from Kevin, Montana, to the neighboring town of Sunburst. Habets began to remove the pipeline, but when he reached property owned by John and Jeanne Swanson, the couple denied him access to their land. They claimed that approximately 15 years earlier, they purchased 35 miles of pipeline from Cenex, including the pipe that Habets believed he owned.

The Swansons' contract with Cenex included a map, on which the pipeline was marked in red. The Swansons acknowledged that their contract map did not indicate the pipe from Kevin to Sunburst. However, they argued that parol evidence would establish that Cenex had agreed to include the disputed pipeline in the sale.

The trial court refused to hear the parol evidence, and ruled that Habets was entitled to the pipe. The Swansons appealed.

Issue: Should the Swansons be permitted to introduce parol evidence to prove that they owned the disputed pipe?

Excerpts from Justice Regnier's Decision: It is well-settled by this court that where the language of an agreement is clear and unambiguous and, as a result, susceptible to only one interpretation, the duty of the court is to apply the language as written. Only where an ambiguity exists may the court turn to extrinsic evidence of contemporaneous or prior agreements to determine the intent of the parties.

The Swansons contend that the District Court should have allowed them to submit parol evidence regarding the terms of their contract with Cenex pursuant to the "stranger exception" to the parol evidence rule [that is, because Habets was not a party to the original agreement.]

The issue of whether a party to an unambiguous integrated writing may submit extrinsic evidence to interpret, modify, or contradict its terms when the dispute involves a third party has never been clearly presented to us. There is a diversity of opinion in other jurisdictions regarding whether the parol evidence rule precludes the admission of extrinsic evidence of a written agreement in disputes between a party to the contract and a stranger. Some jurisdictions hold that parol evidence can be used to vary or contradict the document when the litigation is between a party to the contract and a stranger thereto. However, the stranger exception has been soundly criticized as logically unsound by some of the most prominent legal scholars. For instance, Professor Williston observes that the written contract represents the whole truth of the contractual obligations of the parties to the agreement, "no matter

. . . who the inquiring party may be. To admit parol evidence, otherwise inadmissible as between the parties themselves, is to permit facts to be shown which have no relevance to the issue of what is the contract."

Other jurisdictions hold that the parol evidence rule precludes the admission of extrinsic evidence when the rights and duties created by the document are the dispositive issue. We believe that applying the parol evidence rule in disputes between parties and strangers when the terms of the contract are the dispositive issue to be the better rule. We now hold that

[pic 4]

Exception: An Incomplete or Ambiguous Contract

If a court determines that a written contract is incomplete or ambiguous, it will permit parol evidence. Suppose that an employment contract states that the company will provide "full health coverage for Robert Watson and his family." Three years later, Watson divorces and remarries, acquiring three stepchildren, and a year later his second

wife has a baby. Watson now has two children by his first marriage, and four by the second. The company refuses to insure Watson's first wife or his stepchildren. A court will probably find that the health care clause is ambiguous. A judge cannot determine exactly what the clause means from the contract itself, so the parties will be permitted to

introduce parol evidence to prove whether or not the company must insure Watson's extended family.12

Misrepresentation or Duress

A court will permit parol evidence of misrepresentation or duress. To encourage Annette to buy his house, Will assures her that no floodwaters from the nearby river have ever come within two miles of the house. Annette signs a contract, which is silent about flooding and includes an integration clause stating that neither party is relying on any oral statements made during negotiations. When Annette moves in, she discovers that the foundation is collapsing due to earlier flooding, and that Will knew of the flooding and the damage. Despite the integration

clause, a court will probably allow Annette to testify about Will's misrepresentations.13

CHAPTER CONCLUSION

Some contracts must be in writing to be enforceable, and the writing must be clear and unambiguous. Drafting the contract need not be arduous. The disputes illustrated in this chapter could all have been prevented with a few carefully crafted sentences. It is worth the time and effort to write them.

[pic 5]

12 See, e.g., Eure v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., Inc., 561 S.E.2d 663 (Va. 2002).

13 See, e.g., Lindbergh v. Roseth, — P.3d —, 2002 WL 741560 (Idaho 2002).

1. Traducción Literal al Castellano[pic 6]

[pic 7]

HABETS v. SWANSON

303 Mont. 410, 16 P.3d 1035

Corte Suprema de Montana, 2000

Hechos: La Farmers Union Central Exchange (Cenex) vendió a Glen Habets siete millas de tubería subterránea, que se extendía desde Kevin, Montana, hasta la ciudad vecina de Sunburst. Habets comenzó a retirar la tubería, pero cuando llegó a la propiedad de John y Jeanne Swanson, la pareja le negó el acceso a sus tierras. Ellos afirmaban que, aproximadamente 15 años antes, habían comprado 35 millas de tubería a Cenex, incluyendo el tubo que Habets creía poseer.

El contrato de los Swanson con Cenex incluía un mapa en el que la tubería estaba marcada en rojo. Los Swanson reconocieron que el mapa de su contrato no indicaba la tubería de Kevin a Sunburst. Sin embargo, argumentaron que la evidencia extrínseca (parol evidence) demostraría que Cenex había acordado incluir la tubería en disputa en la venta.

El tribunal de primera instancia se rehusó a escuchar la evidencia extrínseca y dictaminó que Habets tenía derecho a la tubería. Los Swanson apelaron.

Cuestión Jurídica (Issue): ¿Debería permitirse a los Swanson presentar evidencia extrínseca (parol evidence) para demostrar que eran propietarios de la tubería en disputa?

Extractos de la Decisión del Juez Regnier: Está bien establecido por esta corte que cuando el lenguaje de un acuerdo es claro e inequívoco y, como resultado, es susceptible de una sola interpretación, el deber del tribunal es aplicar el lenguaje tal como está escrito. Solo donde exista una ambigüedad puede el tribunal recurrir a evidencia extrínseca de acuerdos contemporáneos o previos para determinar la intención de las partes.

Los Swanson sostienen que el Tribunal de Distrito debería haberles permitido presentar evidencia extrínseca sobre los términos de su contrato con Cenex de conformidad con la "excepción de terceros" (stranger exception) a la regla de la evidencia extrínseca [es decir, porque Habets no era parte del acuerdo original].

La cuestión de si una parte de un escrito integrado e inequívoco puede presentar evidencia extrínseca para interpretar, modificar o contradecir sus términos cuando la disputa involucra a un tercero nunca se nos ha presentado claramente. Existe una diversidad de opiniones en otras jurisdicciones sobre si la regla de la evidencia extrínseca impide la admisión de evidencia extrínseca de un acuerdo escrito en disputas entre una parte del contrato y un tercero extraño. Algunas jurisdicciones sostienen que la evidencia extrínseca puede usarse para variar o contradecir el documento cuando el litigio es entre una parte del contrato y un tercero extraño al mismo. Sin embargo, la excepción de terceros ha sido profundamente criticada como lógicamente errónea por algunos de los académicos del derecho más prominentes. Por ejemplo, el Profesor Williston observa que el contrato escrito representa toda la verdad de las obligaciones contractuales de las partes del acuerdo, "sin importar . . . quién sea la parte que indague. Admitir evidencia extrínseca, que de otro modo sería inadmisible entre las partes mismas, es permitir que se demuestren hechos que no tienen relevancia con la cuestión de cuál es el contrato".

...