Pioneer presented evidence that it was working with city inspectors to bring the plant into compliance with city regulations and that no significant problems existed. Pioneer also presented evidence that Huether orally approved the changes before they were made. Finally, the lease provided that Cloverdale could not unreasonably withhold consent to improvements, and Pioneer presented evidence that many of the alterations were required to comply with USDA regulations. The evidence was sufficient to raise a fact question regarding whether Pioneer materially breached the lease agreement. The trial court did not err in denying Cloverdale's motion for a directed verdict.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review.
The object of statutory interpretation is to determine and give effect to the legislature's intent. When the words in a statute are clear and unambiguous, a court must give effect to the plain meaning of the language. Tuma v. Commissioner of Econ. If a statute is ambiguous, the legislature's intent must be determined by examining the need for the law, the circumstances of its enactment, the mischief to be remedied, the purpose of the statute, the prior law, if any, the consequences of an interpretation, the legislative history, and the legislative and administrative interpretations of the law. The alleged termination was intended in whole or in part as a penalty for the defendant's good faith report to a governmental authority of the plaintiff's violation of any health, safety, housing or building codes or ordinances.