Agreement to Agree

Ray Fischer owned a tax-consulting business called Corporate Tax Management, Inc., and negotiated to sell the business assets to Mark Boozer and Jerrod Raymond. In 2007, the parties signed an Asset Purchase Agreement in which Fischer agreed to sell his business to CTMI, LLC, an entity created by Boozer and Raymond to own the assets and operate the business.

The purchase price was $900,000, subject to adjustments, to be paid in a series of payments over several years. The first payment of $300,000 was paid to Fischer at the 2007 closing. The balance consisted of “earn-out” payments over a four year term, one for each of the years in which Fischer was employed by CTMI.

Payments were timely made in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The 2010 payment consisting of the final earn-out included an additional component based on revenues that CTMI would receive after 2010 for work performed in 2010 but not completed by year’s end.

Regarding the 2010 work payable by CTMI to Fischer in 2011, the parties agreed in their Asset Purchase Agreement that the percentage of completion “will have to be mutually agreed upon” by CTMI and Fischer. That provision – the percentage of completion will have to be mutually agreed upon – generated a lawsuit.

CTMI asserted in the litigation that the 2010 adjustment clause was unenforceable because it provided that future completion percentages “will have to be mutually agreed upon,” and Texas law provides that agreements to agree in the future are unenforceable because they lack definition and specificity.

In June 2011 the trial court entered judgment for Ray Fischer, declaring that the 2010 adjustment was not an unenforceable agreement to agree. Fischer won.

CTMI appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, and rendered judgment that the 2010 was an unenforceable agreement to agree. CTMI won.

Fischer appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court started its analysis by stating that contract terms must be definite and certain as to terms that are material and essential to the parties’ agreement. The Court then applied these principles to the CTMI – Fischer facts.

The Court reasoned that CTMI and Fischer intended a reasonable price since a formula was used to compute amounts owing in previous years. And then the Court determined that the Contract also intended that parties should engage in the same process in 2011 as they did in previous years.

Consequently, the Supreme Court of the State of Texas held that the trial court’s Judgment was correct and the Texas Court of Appeals was mistaken. So the Judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the Judgment of the trial court was reinstated.

Fischer wins. CTMI loses.

See Fischer v. CTMI; Cause No. 13-0977-CV; Texas Supreme Court; January 21, 2016.

Lessons learned:

1.      This is the first “agreement to agree” case I can recall reading where the Contract was upheld.

 

2.      Don’t put yourself and your clients in this position. Use formulas and algorithms if needed to specify how and when future monies will be tabulated and paid, but don’t trust that Courts will uphold a contractual provision that is ambiguous, confusing or overly-complex.

3.      Despite the ruling of this Court – do not count on “agreements to agree” to be enforceable in Texas. In this unique situation, the Supreme Court was able to look back on four years of timely contractual performance and used that as a springboard for the one remaining payment. Without that history, this Contract would likely have failed.

 

Reprinted with the permission of North Texas Commercial Association of REALTORS®, Inc.



Doctrine of Merger

In the late 1980s Joseph and Genevieve Roche starting work on the Roche Family Winery outside the City of Sonoma on Highway 121. By 2005 the winery went bust, and the property was offered for sale.

On November 15, 2006, Ram’s Gate Winery LLC entered into a contract to buy the winery property. The Roches agreed to provide a full disclosure of all information known to them regarding the property condition within 10 days.

Ram’s Gate evidently approved the condition of the property, and the deal closed on December 14, 2006. Four years later Ram’s Gate sued the Roches and the brokers involved in the purchase, alleging that the Roches failed to provide information within their possession relating to earthquake issues.

Ram’s Gate alleges it learned in mid-2007 about an active fault line on the property, which had been documented in two reports available to the Roches, being a site plan prepared in 1987-1988 and a geological study of 1987. Both identified a fault trace on the land, which required the Roches to relocate the winery building to provide a 50-foot setback.

The Roches contend that Ram’s Gate either knew or should have known about the earthquake issues before closing, as the two reports were in the Sonoma County files.

The Roches filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, claiming that since the Purchase Agreement did not specifically provide that the warranty relating to disclosures would survive closing, those obligations “merged” into the deed and could not properly be the subject of a claim.

On March 1, 2013 the court granted the Roches’ Motion for Summary Judgment, stating that the representations and warranties made in the agreement are extinguished as of the closing date, unless the Contract specifically stated they would survive. Ram’s Gate appealed.

This Federal Appellate Court started by focusing on the intent of the parties. In doing so, the Court determined that the contractual terms were inconsistent with the Deed. And that the Deed was “. . . a rather pedestrian instrument addressing only ‘the mechanics of transferring title’ and containing a legal description of the property conveyed.”

From there, the Court analyzed the balance of the Contract. As in most commercial contracts, the Court found that some portions of the Contract specifically provided for post-closing survival, while many others were silent. However, from there the Court concluded that the fact that several paragraphs in the Contract provided for survival does not mean that no other provision could survive without a similar recital.

Although a basic legal doctrine of “merger” states that those matters excluded from the Deed and not continued within a “survival” recital in the Purchase Agreement are forever extinguished, this Appellate Court rejected the concept of integration. Instead, this Court concurred with Ram’s Gate that the Roches should have disclosed the existence of fault trace lines within the buyer’s due diligence period. The Roches could not now escape that obligation by using the “Doctrine of Merger” inherent in all commercial real estate closings.

See Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche; Nos. A139189 and A141090; US Court of Appeals, 1^st Circuit, Division 4; April 9, 2015.

Lessons learned:

1.      I’ve been doing this a long time. A really long time. I was pretty sure I knew the doctrines of merger and integration, particularly as applied to commercial real estate. Maybe this is a rogue opinion (it’s from California after all), but still.

2.      And yet there’s another way to look at this that makes sense. Forget integration and merger. Instead, focus on the issues created where the Seller (could also be a Landlord) fails to disclose material conditions to the Buyer / Tenant in the period of time before the Buyer / Tenant becomes committed to do the deal. In that context, this outcome is logical.

3.      Practice Point: Disclose more, not less. Keep written records of your disclosures. Don’t assume that the buyer / tenant had knowledge of a defect or condition, and factored that into the decision to close or go forward with the deal, unless you furnished that intel to the buyer / tenant.

Reprinted with the permission of North Texas Commercial Association of REALTORS®, Inc.