stating that “where a contract is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction, and it must be presumed that the parties meant what they expressed.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “where a contract is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction, and it must be presumed that the parties meant what they expressed.”
- “The cardinal rule in construction and interpretation of contracts is that effect must be given to the intention of the parties____”
- Maryland follows objective test for interpreting written contracts; where contract is plain and unambiguous and in absence of fraud, duress, or mutual mistake, court cannot look beyond four corners of the written contract to evidence of prior statements or agreements, especially when contract contains integration clause
- courts generally should not look beyond the contract to evidence of prior statements or agreements, especially when contract contains integration clause
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Murphy, C. J.,
dissenting: -
Because I think that Rod’s responsibility under the contract to complete “. . . all paving, etc. in regard the streets, etc. of the subdivision” was plainly limited to the $45,000 held in the escrow account, I must respectfully dissent from the view taken by the majority of the Court.
Judges Singley and Smith concur.