CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLES
When construing a written contract, a
court is to determine and give effect to the intent of the parties as expressed
in the instrument. See Coker v. Coker,
650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). Terms in a written contract are given
"their plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning unless the
instrument shows that the parties used them in a technical or different
sense." Heritage Res., Inc. v.
NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996). "`If the written
instrument is so worded that it can be given a certain or definite legal
meaning or interpretation, then it is not ambiguous and the court will construe
the contract as a matter of law.'" Enter.
Leasing Co. of Houston v. Barrios, 156 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393).
SOURCE: BEAUMONT COURT OF APPEALS - No.
09-12-00073-CV - 2/21/2013
UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT
When a contract is not ambiguous, we construe it according
to the plain meaning of its express wording and enforce it as written. Chapman v. Abbot, 251 S.W.3d 612, 616-17
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Extrinsic evidence may not be
used to create an ambiguity. See
Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 972 S.W.2d 738, 745. We may, however,
examine the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances present when the
contract was entered. See
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 35 S.W.3d 658, 666
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).
SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - No. 01-11-00460-CV – 2/14/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment