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

978 chars
An ambiguity arises in a contract if there is duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty in the meaning of the words used, or if the contract promises something at one place and takes it away at another. Bydalek v. Brines, 29 S.W.3d 848, 854 (Mo.App. S.D.2000). The test is whether the disputed language, in the context of the entire agreement, is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction, giving the words their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a reasonable person. Garner v. Hubbs, 17 S.W.3d 922, 927 (Mo.App. S.D.2000). Whether a provision or term in a contract is ambiguous depends upon the context in which it is used. Purcell Tire & Rubber v. Executive Beechcraft, 59 S.W.3d 505, 510 (Mo. banc 2001). Accordingly, contract language is not interpreted in a vacuum, but by reference to the contract as a whole. Id. The mere fact that the parties disagree on the interpretation of a contract does not render the document itself ambiguous. Garner at 927.