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

1,671 chars
In Rouggly v. Whitman, 592 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App. E.D.1979), cited in our opinion, the court considered the evidence that had been before the trial court in a case where, as here, the trial court had improperly concluded that a document was unambiguous. There, unlike this case, the conclusion that the document was unambiguous had apparently resulted in no findings relating to factual issues. Nevertheless, the court said that “we will review the entire record of the proceedings below, and, if the evidence is sufficient to enable us to do so, enter such judgment as should have been entered below.” Id. at 519. As in Royal Banks, the court in Rouggly said that in construing ambiguous contracts, the courts consider “the entire contract, subsidiary agreements, the relationship of the parties, the subject matter of the contract, the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, the practical construction the parties themselves have placed on the contract by their acts and deeds, and other external circumstances which cast fight on the intent of the parties.” 592 S.W.2d at 519-20. The court also said that “[t]he more probable and reasonable of two available constructions should be utilized to the exclusion of one which produces a ‘redundant, illusory, absurd, and therefore unreasonable’ result.” Id. at 521 (internal citations omitted). After doing so, the court in Rouggly *787concluded, as we have here, that there was no need to resort to the artificial rule of construction whereby courts construe ambiguous language against the party responsible for its use. Id. at 528. Accordingly, this argument in Lessor’s motion is not well taken.