explaining that if, after court attempts to determine what reasonable person would have thought contract meant, “a contract and its terms are still not subject to one definite meaning, the ambiguities remaining in the contract will be construed strongly against the drafter”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that if, after court attempts to determine what reasonable person would have thought contract meant, “a contract and its terms are still not subject to one definite meaning, the ambiguities remaining in the contract will be construed strongly against the drafter”
- noting the “multitude of cases which hold that the term ‘include’ is expansionary, and not limiting”
- if there is no one definite reasonable interpretation, “the ambiguities remaining in the contract will be ‘construed strongly against the drafter ....’”
- "The first step in contract interpretation is determining what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought the disputed language meant.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I would reverse and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment for appellant. The trial court and the Board correctly held that Paragraph 12(f) is not ambiguous; however, both erred as a matter of law when they interpreted the term “include” to exclude the costs and charges contained in Paragraph 12(f). Such an interpretation “violates the rule that all language of a contract should be given effect and no terms should be construed as meaningless.” Northwest Marine Iron Works v. United States, 493 F.2d 652, 657 (Ct.Cl.1974). See also Thanet Gorp. v. United States, 591 F.2d 629, 633 (Ct.Cl.1979); State of Arizona v. United States, 575 F.2d 855, 863 (Ct.Cl.1978). The holding is also at variance with a multitude of cases which hold that the term “include” is expansionary, and not limiting. See, e.g., Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100 , 62 S.Ct. 1, 3-4 , 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); American Federation of Television and Radio Artists v. NLRB, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 275 , 462 F.2d 887, 890 (1972); 20A Words and Phrases 152-55 (1959).