Case ID: or-app_69/html/0252-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted June 20,
    affirmed July 18, 1984
    HEATHMAN, Respondent, v. PAR-4, INC., Appellant.
    
    (A28204-02099; CA A29499)
    684 P2d 630
    Frank M. Parisi, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Spears, Lubersky, Campbell, Bledsoe, Anderson & Young, Portland.
    Irving W. Potter, Portland, 0argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Frank Josselson and Josselson & Potter, Portland.
    Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this action for declaratory relief, in which plaintiff sought a declaration of the rights of the parties under a contract, it is clear from the pleadings that the parties disagree on the meaning of the contract. At the close of plaintiffs case, defendant moved to dismiss the action under ORCP 54B(2). The denial of that motion is the only error assigned on appeal.

Even though we might disagree with the trial court’s interpretation of the contract, there was no error in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.