Opinion ID: 2602335
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Krossa ratified All Alaskan's terms.

Text: The superior court found that Krossa learned of All Alaskan's payment formula after about one week on the SHELIKOF, and that at that time he accepted the meaning intended by All Alaskan, thereby forming a contract. Because we give effect to the parties' reasonable expectations [23] in interpreting a contract, and because the superior court found that after the first week the parties both reasonably expected that Krossa would be paid based on All Alaskan's payment formula, we affirm the superior court's holding regarding contract formation. We have explained that although a party may avoid a contract based on mistake or misrepresentation regarding the contract's meaning, the party loses power to avoid the contract if, after he knows or has reason to know of the mistake or non-fraudulent misrepresentation... he manifests to the other party his intention to affirm it or acts with respect to anything he has received in a manner inconsistent with disaffirmance, or he does not within a reasonable time manifest to the other party his intention to avoid it. [24] Krossa does not challenge the evidentiary sufficiency of the superior court's findings that he accepted All Alaskan's terms and that his acceptance was further confirmed by his asking to return immediately for another contract that he signed in August, 1995, which included explicitly all the terms [intended by All Alaskan in the first contract]. Nor does he offer evidence that he manifested intent to avoid the contract at any point during the term of his first contract. Therefore, the trial court was correct in its conclusion that Krossa ratified the contract by his actions.