Some of the language in the documents suggests that Master Mark agreed to purchase the molds by installment payments. This language could be construed to assign unambiguously to Master Mark the obligation to purchase the lattice molds. However, other language in the agreements indicates that Master Mark was not obligated under the agreement to purchase the molds. This language suggests that Master Mark retained the right to determine whether it would complete the purchase of the molds. When the language of a contract is ambiguous, a court may examine extrinsic evidence, and the construction of the contract becomes a question of fact.
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact.
Brockmeyer v. Fort Wayne Pub. Ambiguous contract language should be construed against the drafter. Bicknell Minerals, Inc. See Brant Constr. Co. v. Lumen Constr.