6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Formento v. Encanto Business Parkgreen2 sentences1991As the court in Formento stated, "a seller should not be allowed to hide behind an integration clause to avoid the consequences of a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or negligent." Formento, 154 Ariz. at 499 , 744 P.2d at 26 . 1991As the court in Formento stated, "a seller should not be allowed to hide behind an integration clause to avoid the consequences of a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or negligent." Formento, 154 Ariz. at 499 , 744 P.2d at 26 . | 1 | 2 |
Colorado Coffee Bean, LLC v. Peaberry Coffee Inc.green1 sentence2025See id. at 21 . | 1 | 1 |
Anderson & Nafziger v. G. T. Newcomb, Inc.green2 sentences1995This method obtains even though the parties have bargained for and written the actual words found in the instrument.”); Anderson, 100 Idaho at 180 , 595 P.2d at 714 (courts “should consider not only the language of the agreement but all extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of whether the parties intended the written agreement to be a complete integration”); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 209(2) (1979) (“Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evid 1995This method obtains even though the parties have bargained for and written the actual words found in the instrument.”); Anderson, 100 Idaho at 180 , 595 P.2d at 714 (courts “should consider not only the language of the agreement but all extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of whether the parties intended the written agreement to be a complete integration”); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 209(2) (1979) (“Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evid | 1 | 1 |
Arb (American Research Bureau), Inc. v. E-Systems, Inc., Arb (American Research Bureau), Inc. v. E-Systems, Incgreen2 sentences1995Franklin v. White, 493 N.E.2d 161, 166 (Ind.1986); see also ARB, 663 F.2d at 199 (court must consider “the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract” to ascertain whether an integration clause serves to “express the genuine intention of the parties to make the written contract the complete and exclusive statement of their agreement”); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 393 , 682 P.2d at 398 (“Evidence on surrounding circumstances, including negotiation, prior understandings, subsequent conduct and the like, is taken to determine the parties’ intent with regard to integration of the agreement. ... 1995Franklin v. White, 493 N.E.2d 161, 166 (Ind.1986); see also ARB, 663 F.2d at 199 (court must consider "the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract" to ascertain whether an integration clause serves to "express the genuine intention of the parties to make the written contract the complete and exclusive statement of their agreement"); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 393 , 682 P.2d at 398 ("Evidence on surrounding circumstances, including negotiation, prior understandings, subsequent conduct and the like, is taken to determine the parties' intent with regard to integration of the agreement.... | 1 | 1 |
Franklin v. Whitegreen2 sentences1995Franklin v. White, 493 N.E.2d 161, 166 (Ind.1986); see also ARB, 663 F.2d at 199 (court must consider “the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract” to ascertain whether an integration clause serves to “express the genuine intention of the parties to make the written contract the complete and exclusive statement of their agreement”); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 393 , 682 P.2d at 398 (“Evidence on surrounding circumstances, including negotiation, prior understandings, subsequent conduct and the like, is taken to determine the parties’ intent with regard to integration of the agreement. ... 1995Franklin v. White, 493 N.E.2d 161, 166 (Ind.1986); see also ARB, 663 F.2d at 199 (court must consider "the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract" to ascertain whether an integration clause serves to "express the genuine intention of the parties to make the written contract the complete and exclusive statement of their agreement"); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 393 , 682 P.2d at 398 ("Evidence on surrounding circumstances, including negotiation, prior understandings, subsequent conduct and the like, is taken to determine the parties' intent with regard to integration of the agreement.... | 1 | 1 |
Neville v. Scottgreen2 sentences1995This method obtains even though the parties have bargained for and written the actual words found in the instrument.”); Anderson, 100 Idaho at 180 , 595 P.2d at 714 (courts “should consider not only the language of the agreement but all extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of whether the parties intended the written agreement to be a complete integration”); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 209(2) (1979) (“Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evid 1995This method obtains even though the parties have bargained for and written the actual words found in the instrument.”); Anderson, 100 Idaho at 180 , 595 P.2d at 714 (courts “should consider not only the language of the agreement but all extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of whether the parties intended the written agreement to be a complete integration”); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 209(2) (1979) (“Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evid | 1 | 1 |
Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurancegreen2 sentences1995Franklin v. White, 493 N.E.2d 161, 166 (Ind.1986); see also ARB, 663 F.2d at 199 (court must consider “the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract” to ascertain whether an integration clause serves to “express the genuine intention of the parties to make the written contract the complete and exclusive statement of their agreement”); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 393 , 682 P.2d at 398 (“Evidence on surrounding circumstances, including negotiation, prior understandings, subsequent conduct and the like, is taken to determine the parties’ intent with regard to integration of the agreement. ... 1995Franklin v. White, 493 N.E.2d 161, 166 (Ind.1986); see also ARB, 663 F.2d at 199 (court must consider “the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract” to ascertain whether an integration clause serves to “express the genuine intention of the parties to make the written contract the complete and exclusive statement of their agreement”); Darner, 140 Ariz. at 393 , 682 P.2d at 398 (“Evidence on surrounding circumstances, including negotiation, prior understandings, subsequent conduct and the like, is taken to determine the parties’ intent with regard to integration of the agreement. ... | 1 | 1 |
Whitney, Exec. v. Halibutgreen2 sentences1995This method obtains even though the parties have bargained for and written the actual words found in the instrument.”); Anderson, 100 Idaho at 180 , 595 P.2d at 714 (courts “should consider not only the language of the agreement but all extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of whether the parties intended the written agreement to be a complete integration”); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 209(2) (1979) (“Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evid 1995This method obtains even though the parties have bargained for and written the actual words found in the instrument.”); Anderson, 100 Idaho at 180 , 595 P.2d at 714 (courts “should consider not only the language of the agreement but all extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of whether the parties intended the written agreement to be a complete integration”); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 209(2) (1979) (“Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evid | 1 | 1 |
Keller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.green2 sentences1995Smith Harvestore Prods., “ ‘a seller should not be allowed to hide behind an integration clause to avoid the consequences of a misrepresentation.’” 819 P.2d 69, 73 (Colo. 1991) (quoting Formento v. Encanto Bus. 1995Smith Harvestore Prods ., "`a seller should not be allowed to hide behind an integration clause to avoid the consequences of a misrepresentation.'" 819 P.2d 69, 73 (Colo.1991) (quoting Formento v. Encanto Bus. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Steak N Shake Enterprises, Inc. v. Globex Co., LLC
neutral
2 sentences2024Colo. 2015) (applying Ke ller and other Colorado and Indiana law to conclude that contract’s language “specifically and clearly” barred fraudulent inducement claim), aff’d on other grounds , 659 F. App’x 506 (10th Cir. 2 016). 5 An integration clause, sometimes called a merger clause, states that a contract is the complete and final agreement between t he parties, thus limiting future disputes to the express t erms of the contract. 2024Colo. 2015) (applying Ke ller and other Colorado and Indiana law to conclude that contract’s language “specifically and clearly” barred fraudulent inducement claim), aff’d on other grounds , 659 F. App’x 506 (10th Cir. 2 016). 5 An integration clause, sometimes called a merger clause, states that a contract is the complete and final agreement between t he parties, thus limiting future disputes to the express t erms of the contract. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Bill Dreiling Motor Company v. Shultz
green
2 sentences1996While the mere presence of an integration clause may not necessarily bar a claim for fraud in the inducement, see Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Shultz, 168 Colo. 59 , 450 P.2d 70 (1969), because of the integration clause the dispute would appear to arise “with respect to the ... interpretation” of at least this aspect of the employment agreement. 1996While the mere presence of an integration clause may not necessarily bar a claim for fraud in the inducement, see Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Shultz, 168 Colo. 59 , 450 P.2d 70 (1969), because of the integration clause the dispute would appear to arise “with respect to the ... interpretation” of at least this aspect of the employment agreement. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sutton v. Stacey's Fuel Mart, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995This method obtains even though the parties have bargained for and written the actual words found in the instrument.”); Anderson, 100 Idaho at 180 , 595 P.2d at 714 (courts “should consider not only the language of the agreement but all extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of whether the parties intended the written agreement to be a complete integration”); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 209(2) (1979) (“Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol evid 1995This method obtains even though *117 the parties have bargained for and written the actual words found in the instrument."); Anderson, 100 Idaho at 180 , 595 P.2d at 714 (courts "should consider not only the language of the agreement but all extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of whether the parties intended the written agreement to be a complete integration"); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 209(2) (1979) ("Whether there is an integrated agreement is to be determined by the court as a question preliminary to determination of a question of interpretation or to application of the parol | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.