Under federal and Texas law, a court may look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether a writing is a complete expression of the parties' agreement and therefore a partially or fully integrated agreement. See The York Grp., Inc. v. Horizon Casket Grp., Inc., Civ. No. 05-2181, 2007 WL 2021763, at *4 (S.D. Tex. July 11, 2007) (quoting Pennzoil Co. v. F.E.R.C., 645 F.2d 360, 388 (5th Cir. 1981). There is no indication in the email string or the one-page outline that the outline, standing alone, was intended to be the parties' fully integrated agreement.
” Theatre Time Clock, Inc. v. Stewart, 276 F.Supp. 593, 599 (E.D.La. Nov. 29, 1967); 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 252 (“An illegal agreement is void.”) According to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, a “promise for breach of which the law neither gives a remedy nor otherwise recognizes a duty of performance by the promisor is often called a void contract,” and “such a promise is not a contract at all.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 7 (Comment (a)) (1981); York Grp., Inc. v. Horizon Casket Grp., Inc., 06–0262, 2007 WL 2120419 (S.D.Tex. July 10, 2007) (“A ‘void contract’ is defined as a contract that is of no legal effect, so that there is really no contract in existence at all.”)(internal citation omitted).
A suit for tortious interference with an existing contract requires a valid contract. York Group, Inc. v. Horizon Casket Group, Inc., 2007 WL 2120419, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 10, 2007) (applying Texas law); S A Marinas, Inc. v. Leonard Marine Corp., 875 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.App.-Austin 1994, writ denied). "A cause of action for tortious interference will not lie in the absence of a contract."