In fact, in notifying the Hanna Parties of their breach, the Bank expressly informed the Hanna Parties that “partial payments shall not constitute, or be deemed to be, a cure of the Default or waive, limit, or condition any of Bank's rights and remedies.” The Hanna Parties rely on parol evidence to dispute the alleged breach, but the Bank preserved its objection to that evidence through motions in limine upon which the district court definitively ruled, seeFed.R.Evid. 103(b), and parol evidence should not have been admitted for the purpose of varying or contradicting the written contract. Knight v. Interco Inc., 873 F.2d 1125, 1127 (8th Cir.1989) (applying Arkansas law). The Hanna Parties' breach of the 2005 JB Hanna loan resulted in the default and cross-default of all of the other agreements.
Further, " [w]here a contract is terminable at any time on notice and it is terminated without notice, the damages which the aggrieved party may recover are limited to the notice period." 25 C.J.S. Damages § 110 (2009); see alsoKnight v. Interco Inc., 873 F.2d 1125, 1128-29 (8th Cir.1989) (applying Arkansas law); 11 SAMUEL WILLISTON, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS § 1359, at 311 (Walter H.E. Jaeger ed., 3d ed.1968). Here, the parties capped the damages recoverable on their contract by including the reciprocal termination provision allowing either party to end this contract upon 180-days'-written notice.