explaining that courts should not “qnterpret one provision of a contract in a manner which results in another portion being annulled”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that courts should not “qnterpret one provision of a contract in a manner which results in another portion being annulled”
- stating courts “will not interpret one provision of a contract in a manner which results in another portion being annulled” (quotation and quotation marks omitted)
- stating “[w]hen a written contract is clear and unequivocal, its meaning must be determined by its contents alone”
- "The fundamental rule in contract interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the contracting parties[.]" (citation and quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*128 Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
It seems clear to me that the timing of Mrs. Bernath’s death frustrated a material aspect of the settlement agreement— providing a stream of payments to meet her ongoing needs— as no payments ever ensued. Nevertheless, I support the majority’s holding that the relief awarded by the common pleas court, namely, enforcement of a payment term which does not appear in the agreement, is unavailable.