Big Butte Ranch, Inc. v. Holm, 14630
| Decision Date | 03 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 14630,14630 |
| Citation | 570 P.2d 690 |
| Parties | BIG BUTTE RANCH, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Marjorie R. HOLM, Carl William Holm and Esther B. Holm, his wife, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Ronald C. Barker, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Lauren N. Beasley, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.
Appeal from the decision of the district court which determined all of the provisions of a contract to have been terminated and of no force and effect.
The parties hereto entered into a Uniform Real Estate Contract on April 1, 1969, for the purchase of an Idaho farm and under the terms of which the buyers were to supply beef, lamb, potatoes, honey, and wheat from the farm operations to the seller for a period of 25 years. The buyers lived on and worked the farm for some three years before they defaulted. Subsequently, the parties entered into a Termination Agreement prepared by counsel for plaintiff-seller, the third paragraph of which reads as follows:
First party hereby releases second, third and fourth parties from further liability or obligation under the terms of said Uniform Real Estate Contract. . . .
Representations were made that the Termination Agreement relieved buyers of all obligations under the contract although no specific reference was made to the meat and produce obligation. Also, no demand was made for meat and produce prior to the initiation of the lawsuit.
Pursuant to the further terms of said Termination Agreement, defendants vacated the property. Over two years later the seller sued the buyers for not furnishing the meat and produce under the 25 year provision of the contract despite the terminology of the Termination Agreement releasing buyers from "further liability or obligation."
The trial court determined that the language of the Termination Agreement was ambiguous as it pertained to the contract obligation to furnish meat and produce, allowed parol testimony thereon and thereafter concluded that the buyers were in fact relieved of all terms of the contract by virtue of the Termination Agreement and estopped to assert a claim for meat and produce.
Plaintiff asserts as error, 1) the court's determination that the Termination Agreement was ambiguous, and 2) that the principles of estoppel were applicable.
The only question before this Court is whether or not the parties intended all contractual obligations to cease. To ascertain the meaning of the agreements, the court should first examine the language of the instruments and accord to it the weight and effect which it may show was intended and if the meaning is ambiguous or uncertain then consider parol evidence of the parties' intentions. 1
The fact that the Termination Agreement was silent as to whether or not the meat and produce obligation was terminated gave rise to the trial court's appropriate finding that some ambiguity did exist. It simply was not credible that seller expected continued performance from buyers to furnish meat and produce after leaving the farm, the possession of which was necessary to produce the same.
The parol testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass'n
...Lake County, 646 P.2d 696, 698 (Utah 1982); Williams v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 593 P.2d 534, 536 (Utah 1979); Big Butte Ranch, Inc. v. Holm, 570 P.2d 690, 691 (Utah 1977); E.A. Strout W. Realty Agency, Inc. v. Broderick, 522 P.2d 144, 145 (Utah 1974). In a clear departure from this lon......
-
Bekins Bar V Ranch v. Huth, 17746
...which he had not had time to prepare. Generally, therefore, the matter calls for the exercise of sound discretion. Big Butte Ranch Inc. v. Holm, Utah, 570 P.2d 690 (1977). See also First Security Bank v. Colonial Ford Inc., Utah, 597 P.2d 859 (1979). On the facts of this case, there was no ......
-
Buehner Block Co. v. UWC Associates
...exists is question of law to be decided by trial court before parol evidence admitted); Morris, 658 P.2d at 1201; Big Butte Ranch, Inc. v. Holm, 570 P.2d 690, 691 (Utah 1977) ("[T]he court should first examine the language of the instruments and accord to it the weight and effect which it m......
-
Winegar v. Froerer Corp.
...may uphold the trial court's ruling only if we agree that the contract was unambiguous. As this court observed in Big Butte Ranch, Inc. v. Holm, 570 P.2d 690, 691 (Utah 1977), we first examine the language of the instrument, according to it the weight and effect it shows the parties intende......