Opinion ID: 2001489
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Different Versions of Contract

Text: The parties presented dissimilar copies of the remodeling agreement to the trial court thereby leaving it to determine which one was the valid express contract. Werner v. Norwest Bank, 499 N.W.2d 138, 141 (S.D.1993); Mid-America Marketing. Corp. v. Dakota Industries, 289 N.W.2d 797, 799 (S.D.1980). The trial court never specifically decided which contract version prevailed. Yet we can answer the question as a matter of law. North River Ins. Co. v. Golden Rule Const., 296 N.W.2d 910, 912-13 (S.D.1980); Teigen Const. v. Pavement Specialists, Inc., 267 N.W.2d 574 (S.D.1978). The first fourteen pages of the Larsens' version contain twelve divisions detailing specifics of the construction project. Although these divisions are absent from Ahlers' copy, Ahlers neither contests them nor are they part of the dispute. Ahlers' version, a copy of which was attached to its complaint, contains a page labeled BID SHEET (Cont.) which sets plumbing and painting allowances. This bid sheet is absent from the Larsens' copy; thus the allowances are in dispute. Division 11 of Larsens' version states, PLUMBING = An allowance of $1,450 shall be included in the contract. This clause further describes the plumbing work to be performed. Section 5 of ADDENDUM # 1 of Larsens' version explains that the contractor will install the fireplace under the plumbing allowance. A change order attached to Larsens' version dated May 1, 1991 noted that labor for the heating system would be included in the plumbing allowance. The extra bid sheet merely reemphasizes it. At trial, Peter Larsen acknowledged its existence, hence we uphold the court's ruling on this allowance. Considering the parties' remaining arguments, the painting allowance is the only material distinction between the two contracts. Division 9, section G of the Larsens' contract contains the only reference to painting: All exterior siding and millwork shall be stained in accordance to manufacturer's recommendations. (Color to selected [sic] by owner.) Interior walls and ceilings: All walls and ceilings shall have one coat of primer with two coats of semi gloss paint. No mention of a painting allowance ever appears in Larsens' copythe only version containing the parties' signatures. (In contrast with the detailed plumbing allowance.) The extra bid sheet in Ahlers' version contains the only reference to a painting allowance in either contract. If the cost of painting was unknown and required merely an estimate as Ahlers now proclaims, Ahlers failed to adequately inform its customer of this belief. As drafter of the contract, Ahlers bore the responsibility of preventing ambiguity. Production Credit Ass'n v. Wynne, 474 N.W.2d 735, 740 (S.D.1991). No one asserts there was an oral agreement for a painting allowance nor is there evidence extra painting expenses resulted from change orders and additions. Ambiguities arising in a contract should be interpreted and construed against the scrivener. Id.; Forester v. Weber, 298 N.W.2d 96, 97 (S.D.1980). Plainly, there is no proof such an agreement existed with the Larsens, who had every right to believe the painting specified in their signed contract would be included in the contract price. Furthermore, substitution or modification of a contract cannot be effected by the sole action of one of the parties to it. The consent of both is required to alter or supplant a contract fairly made. Sturm v. Boker, 150 U.S. 312, 14 S.Ct. 99, 37 L.Ed. 1093 (1893); 17A AM.JUR.2D Contracts § 513 (1991). No evidence of mutual assent to this extra bid sheet exists. SDCL 53-1-2. As the Larsens' copy is binding, the trial court erred in ruling the painting allowance was exceeded by $1,155 and should be charged to Larsens. Wolff v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 472 N.W.2d 233 (S.D.1991).