Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rhoden Investment Co., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 499 S.W.2d 375 (1973)

Citation
Rhoden Investment Co., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 499 S.W.2d 375 (1973)
Parent Document
Rhoden Investment Co., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 499 S.W.2d 375 (1973)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1973-09-10

Other Sections in This Document (82)

Full Text

770 chars
This argument is made without authority. It contradicts appellant’s expression in its letter to Rhoden, February 3, 1966, that the issue is “ ‘usable warehouse space’ as contemplated by the parties at the time of execution of the lease”; and it already has been demonstrated that Rhoden met its obligation under paragraph F(2) to furnish “usable warehouse space,” although such may have become “unusable in the 60’s for the Sears operation.” The court’s finding in this respect is consistent with the rule that agreements are to be interpreted in the light of the circumstances and the intent of the parties when they enter into the agreement. Ambassador Bldg. Corp. v. St. Louis Ambassador Theatre, 238 Mo.App. 600, 185 S.W.2d 827 (1945); 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 295(e).