- 13 -
no new agreement was executed until 3 years later supports such a
determination. Having determined that the 1986 agreement’s
automatic renewal provision extended the agreement to subsequent
years, we now consider the agreements executed after the 1986
agreement.
Under Nebraska law “‘A contract complete in itself will be
conclusively presumed to supersede and discharge another one made
prior thereto between the same parties concerning the same
subject matter, where the terms of the latter are inconsistent
with those of the former, so they cannot subsist together.’” The
Nebraskans, Inc. v. Homan, 294 N.W.2d 879, 881 (Neb. 1980)
(quoting In re Estate of Wise, 13 N.W.2d 146 (Neb. 1944)(syllabus
of the court)); Goings v. Gerken, 263 N.W.2d 655 (Neb. 1978). In
such case, “a merger of the agreements” occurs. The Nebraskans,
Inc. v. Homan, supra. The parties’ intent to discharge an old
agreement through the execution of a new agreement must clearly
appear. See DeFilipps v. Skinner, 320 N.W.2d 737, 739 (Neb.
1982); In re Estate of Wise, supra. “An inspection of the
contracts, together with examination of the circumstances, may
show that the later contract was intended as supplementary to the
first.” DeFilipps v. Skinner, supra at 739.
Petitioners argue that the original agreement remained in
effect for the years at issue and quote Moudry v. Parkos, 349
N.W. 2d 387, 389 (Neb. 1984), for the proposition that a year-to-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011