When Tucker says his firing was an unwritten term of Dominion settlement, this is why he's lying

[TomDaisy]

Every contract has what is called a Merger Clause, meaning all of the parties' intentions are merged into this written document and any assertions of an oral agreement or oral terms on the side are inadmissible.

For obvious reasons. The parties need confidence that the written contact is the final and full expression of their agreement.

In contract law, an integration clause–also sometimes called a merger clause or an entire agreement clause–is a provision that states that the terms of a contract are the complete and final agreement between the parties. As such, any previous agreements­ that may conflict with the final terms covered by the integration clause–whether written or verbal–cannot be entered as evidence if there is a contract dispute. This is due to the parol evidence rule, which allows parties to admit evidence outside of the contract itself only if any terms in the final contract are ambiguous.

A party looking to include an integration clause in a contract should make sure that the clause uses language that is used and accepted by courts. One example of an integration clause given on LexisNexis is that: “The parties intend this statement of their agreement to constitute the complete, exclusive, and fully integrated statement of their agreement. As such, it is the sole expression of their agreement, and they are not bound by any other agreements of whatsoever kind or nature.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/integration_clause

This is just common boilerplate language on the last page of every single contract always.

If Dominion's lawyers were dumb enough to rely on an oral agreement that Tucker would be fired as a condition of the settlement - they would be doing so with 100% knowledge it would never ever be enforceable. They could not back out of the settlement if Tucker was not later fired.

[Zeitghost]

1. From what I can tell

The agreement was not locked in and either party could withdraw and force the lawsuit to continue until it was finalized.

If that is true, the unwritten Tucker Clause is a possibility.

[Effete Snob]

2. That's not always true

Unless you have seen the contract itself, it's merely speculation.

In fact, the merger clauses of some contracts will expressly merge conditions which are not written in the agreement itself, and can include "performance of the conditions further noted in a letter dated (date) between the parties", or other mechanisms for keeping some things out of the main agreement, in the event the main agreement needs to be litigated.

One very well known example of this was the contract under which Trump paid Stormy Daniels the $148,000.

Do you remember that?

Trump's name wasn't even on it. The name was "David Dennison". But there was a separate confidential letter to the effect that Dennison was Trump.

So, everyone at DU has seen at least one example of a contract in which there were external provisions that were not stated in the contract itself.

[keithbvadu2]

3. Tricky provision for sure. But it was 'written', even if in a separate letter.