Should the "same subject" be broadly defined to be, e.g., the liquor business? If so, then the side agreement for the granting of new liquor franchises to Lee's sons would, as indicated above, fall within the scope of the complete integration regarding Lee's sale of his existing liquor distribution business and would not be enforceable.
Alternatively, should narrower definitions be used, e.g., one subject concerned the sale of Lee's existing liquor distribution business and another, separate subject concerned the granting of new liquor distribution franchises to Lee's sons? If so, the side agreement would fall outside the scope of the complete integration (contrary to what is indicated above) and would be enforceable.
The problem inherent in the "same subject" test is that deciding how broadly or narrowly to define "same subject" requires the court to examine what the parties intended, and this makes the "same subject" test collapse into the party-intent test.