“Ambiguities in contracts are to be resolved by the jury upon consideration of ‘the expressions used, the subject matter, the end in view, the purpose sought, and the situation of the parties at the time.’”
How later courts described this case
- “Ambiguities in contracts are to be resolved by the jury upon consideration of ‘the expressions used, the subject matter, the end in view, the purpose sought, and the situation of the parties at the time.’”
- all recognizing the well established principle that plain and unambiguous language in a contract is to be interpreted by the court as a matter of law
- “[Where] a genuine issue of material fact exists in regard to the intention of the parties, summary judgment [is] not appropriate.”
- ambiguities in contracts are to be resolved by the jury
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge Webb
dissenting.
I dissent. I believe the words of the contract can be interpreted without resort to a jury trial. The contract provides that the property shall be conveyed “free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except . . . 1978 ad valorem taxes on any portions of said property which are subject to taxation, such taxes to be prorated, on a calendar year basis, as of the date of closing.” As I understand this language it provides that there are no encumbrances on the land except possibly 1978 ad valorem taxes. If there were any 1978 taxes on the property the taxes were to be apportioned. There were 1978 ad valorem taxes on the property and the taxes should have been apportioned. I believe the parties did not anticipate what happened. If they had done so we do not believe they would have closed the transaction before 1 July 1978. Nevertheless, the parties did close before 1 July 1978 making the property subject to 1978 ad valorem taxes. The contract provides that in such event the taxes were to be prorated. I vote to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.