hlp

A 1965 union bargaining agreement, a written contract, between employees and Wheelabrator Corp. clearly stated that the company would pay the cost of health insurance for employees who had retired prior to 1959. Later bargaining agreements, the last of which expired in 1988, when the plant at which the employees worked was closed, also indicated that once employees reach the age of sixty-five, Wheelabrator would pay for their and their spouse's for life. Wheelabrator canceled all the health benefits of retired employees and their spouses in 1988 when it closed its plant and the last agreement expired. Note: Wheelabrator is still in business, they just closed the manufacturing plant and outsourced production. Kenneth Bidlack and other retired employees sued the company to have their health benefits reinstated. The employees asserted that the agreements meant that they would be granted benefits for life. Wheelabrator contended that the agreements granted benefits only during the duration of the agreements and that when they expired in 1988, its obligations were complete - and that no promise was intended to extend beyond the expiration. The court was left to decide whether extrinsic evidence (including letters from the company to retirees indicating that the company would pay the cost of the health insurance throughout the retirees' lives) was admissible to clarify the terms of the contract. Should the court allow the employees to introduce extrinsic evidence to justify their claim? Discuss fully