The District, however, provides scant support for this proposition. We thus conclude that a person could reasonably interpret the Agreement to include an obligation on the District's part to reimburse the Cooperative for any interim financing charges incurred in carrying out the terms of the agreement. Because both interpretations are reasonable, the Agreement is ambiguous, and we may therefore look to extrinsic evidence to aid in determining the parties' intent. 72 Wis.2d at 351-52. The parties both suggest, however, that the integration clause in Section 11.11 of the Agreement precludes a court from considering any alleged oral understandings or agreements in interpreting the Agreement.
Extrinsic evidence is admissible, even though the contract has an integration clause.
Quite simply, whether the interim loan was or was not contemplated by the parties when they entered into the Agreement is a hotly disputed issue of fact. Because the Agreement is ambiguous, and because the extrinsic evidence in the record reveals genuine issues of material fact, we reverse the appealed judgment and order, and we remand for further proceedings in the trial court. In its cross-appeal, the Cooperative argues that if we reverse the trial court's favorable ruling on its contract claim, we should restore its alternative equitable claims of promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment, which the court dismissed. We agree that the appealed and cross-appealed judgment must be reversed in its entirety. The trial court did not address the merits of the equitable claims, and we note that their resolution may depend in part on some of the same disputed facts relevant to the contract claim.