Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant breached supply contract that called for defendant to make good-faith effort to purchase 2% of its global cell phone user-manual needs from plaintiff, where, after year into instant two-year contract, defendant notified plaintiff that it was shifting its operation to different country and purchasing its print products from third-party. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, parties’ written contract contained no promise of exclusive right to all of defendant’s printing business in Europe, Middle East and Asia, and contract terms allowed defendant to purchase less than 2% of its global cell-phone needs, where, as here, defendant had experienced significant downturn in business in said geographic areas. Moreover, Dist. Ct. properly rejected plaintiff’s attempt to use parol evidence to establish existence of defendant’s alleged oral promise to exclusivity purchase plaintiff’s printing products, since contract language was fully integrated and unambiguous with respect to defendant’s purchasing options.
