IRAC Case Analysis Rubic to analyze this case.

IRAC Case Analysis Format to analyze Yung-Kai Lu v. Univ of Utah pp 500-501

• I: What is the Legal Issue in This Case?
• R: What is the Rule (law) of the Case?
• A: What is the Court's Analysis and Rationale?
• C: What Was the Conclusion or Outcome of the Case?

Page 500 CONCEPT REVIEW Parol Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule Applies when: Provides that: Parties create a writing intended as a Evidence of statements of promises made before or final and complete integration of at during the creation of the writing cannot be used to least part of the parties' contract. supplement, change, or contradict the terms of the written contract. But parol evidence 1. Prove consistent, additional terms when the contract is partially integrated. can be used to 2. Explain an ambiguity in the written contract. 3. Prove that the contract is void, voidable, or unenforceable. 4. Prove that the contract was subject to a condition. 5. Prove that the parties subsequently modified the contract or made a new agreement.Yung-Kai Lu v. Univ. of Utah 660 Fed. Appx. 573 (10th Cir. 2016) The University of Utah entered into a written agreement with Yung-Kai Lu, a citizen of Taiwan, in May 2010, agreeing to giv him a doctoral-studies scholarship in return for Lu's agreement to be a teaching assistant (the "contract"). The contract specified that scholarships and teaching assistant appointments are limited to "one academic year at a time" and that Lu's appointment was "a nine-month appointment beginning August 16, 2010, and ending May 15, 2011." Despite this limitation, Lu alleged that University Assistant Music Director Donn Schaefer verbally promised him that as long as he maintained a 3.00 GPA, the assistantship and scholarship would be renewed for the full three years Lu planned to study for his doctorate. In April 2011, Schaefer told Lu the contract wouldn't be renewed because the university lacked sufficient funding. According to Lu, however, he was told the contract wouldn't be renewed because of a report to university officials that he had been rude. Lu didn't re-enroll for the next academic term, and his failure to enroll was reported to immigration officials. As a result, Lu's visa wasn't extended and he was deported to Taiwan. Lu's complaint against the university and university officials in their official capacities alleged they breached the contract and verbal promises, in addition to tort claims for slander, false statements, providing inaccurate information to immigration officials, and violations of the Taiwan Relations Act and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the basis that Lu's complaint failed to state any plausible claim as a matter of law The trial court granted defendants' motion, finding Lu lacked any plausible claim under international treaties and his tort claims were barred under the Eleventh Amendment and the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. Further, the court concluded that Lu failed to allege any plausible breach of contract claims given the contract's unambiguous language as to the term of the contract. Additionally, the court reasoned that Utah's parol evidence rule and statute of frauds barred any verbal promise to extend Lu's appointment for three years. Lu made his appeal to the 1 1th Circuit Court of Appeals pro se. Moritz, JudgeMoritz, Judge To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" (citations omitted).... Because Lu proceeds pro se, we construe his complaint liberally, but pro se parties are "not relieved of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based" (citations omitted). [The court dispensed with all ancillary legal allegations and then considered Lu's contract-based claims.] Lu challenges the dismissal of his breach of contract claims. He argues Utah's parol evidence rule doesn't apply because the contract was an incomplete integrated contract. Contrary to Lu's suggestion, the contract contained a complete, final expression as to the length of Lu's scholarship and teaching assistant appointment. See Tangren Family Tr. v. Tangren, 182 P.3d 326, 330 (Utah 2008) (defining an integrated agreement as "a writing ... constituting a final expression of one Page 501 or more terms of an agreement" and holding that an agreement reduced to writing is "conclusively presumed" to contain "the whole of the agreement between the parties"). Thus, the district court correctly ruled Utah's parol evidence rule would bar admission of any pre-contract verbal agreement to extend the appointment past May 15, 2011. Citing language in the contract limiting doctoral students to three-year teaching assistant appointments, Lu argues the district court erred in applying the statute of frauds to bar his breach of contract claim. But the language Lu relies on does not bind the parties to renewing the appointment for three years; instead, it simply states the outside limit on such reappointments. Thus, the district court correctly ruled that evidence of a verbal agreement to renew his appointment for two years after the May 2011 termination date would be barred by Utah's statute of frauds.... Having found no error in the district court's dismissal of Lu's complaint, we affirm the dismissal for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its order dated October 7, 2015. Judgment affirmed