RIO PROPERTIES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARMSTRONG HIRSCH JACKOWAY TYERMAN & WERTHEIMER, Defendant, and STEWART ANNOYANCES, LTD., and RODERICK STEWART, Defendants-Appellants. RIO PROPERTIES, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, v. ARMSTRONG HIRSCH JACKOWAY TYERMAN & WERTHEIMER, Defendant, and STEWART ANNOYANCES, LTD., and RODERICK STEWART, Defendants-Cross-Appellees., 94 Fed. Appx. 519

Summary

The promoter brought an action against defendants to recover the advance fee paid to the singer through the firm to secure the singer's performance. The singer was later unable to perform due to illness. The district court granted the promoter's motions for summary judgment and attorneys' fees. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the district court's exclusive reliance on the terms of an amendment to the original contract was error and that it should have looked at the contract as a whole to resolve the dispute. The contract contained a force majeure provision that supported the singer's argument that he was entitled to reschedule the concert. Further, extrinsic evidence on the intent of the parties was admissible because the integrated agreement was reasonably susceptible to the singer's interpretation that the artist illness provision was not applicable to the force majeure provision. In resolving the issue, the district court had to admit the singer's proffered extrinsic ...