Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)

Citation
Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)
Parent Document
Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
2002-11-21

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text

635 chars
Lessor argues that since the Inducement provision was ambiguous, it should be construed against Lessee as the drafter of that language, citing such cases as Graue v. Missouri Property Ins. Placement Facility, 847 S.W.2d 779, 785 (Mo. banc 1993). Although the evidence was less than clear on the subject, it appeared to indicate that Lessee was responsible for the language contained in the Inducement provision of the Lease. However, the rule espoused by Lessor is employed only as a last result, when there is no evidence showing the parties’ intent. Graham v. Goodman, 850 S.W.2d 351, 356 (Mo. banc 1993). In Rouggly, the court said: