Modern Const., Inc. v. Barce, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3060,3060 |
| Citation | 556 P.2d 528 |
| Parties | MODERN CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v. BARCE, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
Donna C. Willard, Richmond, Willoughby & Willard, Anchorage, for petitioner.
David Wolf, Keane, Harper, Pearlman & Copeland, Anchorage, for respondent.
Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABINOWITZ, CONNOR, ERWIN and BURKE, JJ.
The petition in the case at bar presents a question of contract interpretation which touches upon Alaska's strong public policy in favor of arbitration. 1 The respondent, Barce, Inc., brought an action in the superior court alleging that Modern Construction, Inc. had breached the subcontract into which they had entered. Modern submitted a demand for arbitration and moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the subcontract called for binding arbitration of all disputes. In opposing the motion, Barce maintained that the arbitration clause, found in paragraph 15 of the 'General Conditions of the Subcontract,' was not a part of the subcontract. This argument was based on two allegations; first, that the General Conditions 'four corners' of the document). at the time it was executed, and secondly, that the General Conditions were not made part of the contract because the parties had not completed a blank in paragraph III of the subcontract. This paragraph contained in the subcontract read:
The General Conditions, consisting of Paragraphs 1 through, attached hereto are a part of this Subcontract and by this reference are incorporated in this Subcontract and made a part hereof as fully as though set forth herein.
Modern disputed the allegation that the General Conditions were not attached at the time the contract was executed but admitted that paragraph III was incomplete. However, Modern contended that the failure to complete paragraph III of the subcontract was merely an inadvertent error and that, since the General Conditions were attached, the intention of the parties was clear.
The superior court determined that the blank in paragraph III of the subcontract created an ambiguity whether or not the General Conditions were attached to the subcontract at the time of execution. Thus, the superior court found it unnecessary to rule on the question of fact presented, through affidavits, regarding the physical attachment of the General Conditions to the subcontract. Having found an ambiguity in the Subcontract, the court construed the ambiguity against Modern, the party who drafted the provision. 2 We disagree with the superior court's determination that an ambiguity existed whether or not the General Conditions were attached, and thus remand the matter for a determination of this factual issue.
The mere fact that two parties disagree as to the interpretation of a contract term does not necessarily imply that an ambiguity exists in the contract. Rather, an ambiguity exists only when the contract, taken as a whole, is reasonably subject to differing interpretations. 3 If the General Conditions were attached to the subcontract at the time the instrument was executed, paragraph III, previously quoted, is open to only one reasonable interpretation, namely, that the General Conditions, consisting of paragraphs 1 through 33, which were attached were incorporated into the agreement. Any other interpretation of paragraph III of the subcontract would run counter to the intent of the parties expressed by the reference to the attached General Conditions. In outlining the canons of construction used by the courts in contract interpretation, Professor Williston stated:
The court will if possible give effect to all parts of the instrument and an interpretation which gives a reasonable meaning to all its provisions will be preferred to one which leaves a portion of the writing useless or inexplicable. 4
The superior court's interpretation of paragraph III left the entire General Conditions, nine pages of the instrument, inexplicable. Thus we hold that, on remand, if the superior court determines, as a matter of fact, that the General Conditions were attached at the time the parties executed the subcontract, the motion to dismiss must be granted. 5
However, if the superior court determines that the General Conditions referred to in paragraph III of the subcontract were not attached at the time of execution, the denial of the motion to dismiss should stand. For in that circumstance, we would be presented with a situation in which a reference was made to an item ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King County v. Boeing Co., 5267-44184-I
...48 L.Ed.2d 195 (1976); Fuller Co. v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee, 421 F.Supp. 938, 947 (W.D.Pa.1976); Modern Constr., Inc. v. Barce, Inc., 556 P.2d 528, 529 (Alas.1976)), but it should not be invoked to resolve disputes that the parties have not agreed to arbitrate. Atkinson v. Sinclai......
-
Bingham County Com'n v. Interstate Elec. Co., a Div. of the L.E. Myers Co.
...Mich.App. 286, 282 N.W.2d 292 (1979); Jerviss v. Independent School Dist. No. 294, 273 N.W.2d 638 (Minn.1978); Modern Construction, Inc. v. Barce, Inc., 556 P.2d 528 (Alaska 1976). The legislature, in passing the Uniform Arbitration Act, did not exempt governmental entities from its operati......
-
Ferris v. Jennings, Civ. A. No. 91-T-1382-N.
...and not, therefore, ambiguous. Jarvis v. Aetna Cas. & Sur., 633 P.2d 1359, 1363 (Alaska 1981) (quoting Modern Constr., Inc. v. Barce, Inc., 556 P.2d 528, 529 (Alaska 1976)). Where no ambiguity exists, the court "should not do violence to the plain terms of a contract." Providence Washington......
-
Victor v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...Contractors, Inc. v. State, 564 P.2d 30 (Alaska 1977), appeal after remand, 573 P.2d 1385 (Alaska 1978); Modern Constr., Inc. v. Barce, Inc., 556 P.2d 528, 529 & n. 1 (Alaska 1976). Alaska has adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act. See A.S. § 09.43.010 et seq. Given this strong public policy ......