Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene

To determine if a contract provision is ambiguous and thereby not suitable for summary judgment, the court first looks to the text of the disputed provision and if still ambiguous, it examines extrinsic evidence; if still ambiguous, the court looks to appropriate maxims of construction. Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 937 P2d 1019 (1997).

Plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff assigned error to holding that the SDC credit reimbursement provision was clear enough to allow summary judgment, and to the claim that the city was not unjustly enriched.  On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the text of the agreement unambiguously demonstrated intent to deviate from established city codes limiting SDC reimbursement.  In response, the city argued that the agreement only expressed intent to provide SDC credits, since the city code prohibits reimbursement exceeding a certain number of credits; therefore, nothing unjust occurred.  To determine if a contract provision is ambiguous and thereby not suitable for summary judgment, the court first looks to the text of the disputed provision and if still ambiguous, it examines extrinsic evidence; if still ambiguous, the court looks to appropriate maxims of construction. Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358, 937 P2d 1019 (1997). The Court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment because the text of the agreement was unambiguous in context of the city code and alongside prior communications.  Affirmed on appeal; cross-appeal dismissed as moot.