Ambiguity exists if the contract is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. The trucks are to average 13 to 14 tons per load. Relying on the rules of construction that a contract should not be interpreted so as to render a portion of the contract surplus and that all parts are to be given meaning, Frederickson argues that the contract binds Fox River until August 1, 1998. Fox River, however, claims that the contract's clear and unambiguous terms provide only for a continuing guarantee of price and do not provide for any specific term. We conclude that the contract language in question is ambiguous.
Ambiguity exists if the contract is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.
One reasonable construction of the contract is the trial court's, which concluded that the period specified relates only to rates because the specific language says that the rates are for a two-year period. However, another reasonable interpretation is that the guarantee of rates for two years implies that services will be performed during that time. The ultimate aim of contract interpretation is to ascertain the parties' intent. Whether the parties intended to contract for a term of service cannot be determined from the contract language itself because the contract language suggests two reasonable constructions. Therefore, the provision's meaning must be ascertained by using extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent at the time the contract was executed.