Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton, 133 N.H. 809 (1991)

Citation: Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton, 133 N.H. 809 (1991)
Parent Document: Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton, 133 N.H. 809 (1991)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 1991-01-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8090733/woodstock-soapstone-co-v-carleton/ ↗

Full Text

962 chars

We first consider the issue of the interpretation of the tax escalation clause contained in the lease. We have previously held that the proper interpretation of a lease is ultimately a question of law for this court to determine. Appeal of Concerned Corporators of Portsmouth Sav. Bk., 129 N.H. 183, 198, 525 A.2d 671, 682 (1987). A lease is interpreted to reflect the parties’ intentions at the time of contracting. Id. The language of a contract is ambiguous if the parties to the contract reasonably disagree as to the meaning of that language. City of Manchester v. General Reinsurance Corp., 127 N.H. 806, 809, 508 A.2d 1063, 1065 (1986). In resolving the ambiguity the court must examine the contract as a whole, the circumstances surrounding execution, and the object intended by the agreement. R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671, 475 A.2d 12, 15 (1984); see Erin Food Servs., Inc. v. 688 Props., 119 N.H. 232, 235, 401 A.2d 201, 203 (1979).

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text