A review of the court’s order and the rulings on the plaintiff’s requests for findings of fact and rulings of law reveals that the trial court addressed the issue of maintenance and repair only in conelusory terms. Whether the repairs which would have been required to prevent the barn’s collapse were within the contemplation of the parties when the lease was executed is not ascertainable from the record before us and is a necessary ingredient to determining whether the lease was breached. Because a lease is a contract whose terms must be interpreted according to contract law, Turcotte v. Griffin, 120 N.H. 292, 294, 415 A.2d 668, 669 (1980), the resolution of any question regarding the meaning of the lease is a question which is for the trial court to decide in the first instance, and is essential before this court can determine on appeal whether the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to show that the defendant breached the lease. On remand, the trier of fact must determine the narrow issue of the nature and extent of the defendant’s obligation to maintain and repair the leased property, as contemplated by the parties in their lease agreement, and whether, if performed, such maintenance *134and repairs would have been sufficient to save the barn from collapse. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling that the defendant breached the lease on the record before us and remand this case to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. All concurred.