Opinion ID: 154146
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitution

Text: Constitution presents a different situation because it did (through Alpine) construct a system and failed to purchase NovAtel equipment. Yet, Constitution argues among -19- other things, that it was excused from the obligation to purchase NovAtel equipment because its agreement with NovAtel was limited to a $1,000,000 commitment and the system built by Constitution cost substantially more. We find the contract ambiguous on this point. As previously noted, the first sentence of paragraph 5 stands for the unremarkable proposition that any money advanced by NovAtel must be used to purchase NovAtel equipment. It does not, as Constitution contends, require an actual extension of the loan as a pre-condition to the damages provision in the next sentence. But the two sentences of paragraph 5 are plainly related to each other, as well as to the terms of the rest of the agreement. All these terms relate to a specific loan maximum, and to the construction of a specified system costing less than that maximum. Whether the parties intended the second sentence of paragraph 5 to have a more expansive meaning than construction of a system costing less than $1,000,000 is not clear. Furthermore, there are troubling ancillary questions. Constitution represented both in the initial agreement and in its request for a renewal one year later that the system it was going to construct would cost less than $1,000,000, leading NovAtel to proceed on that basis. It is wholly unexplained on this record how the cost suddenly increased to as much as $3,000,000 without (a) implicating whether there was a misleading representation on the part of Constitution to begin with, or (b) questions about the cost and nature of the system actually built compared to the one originally envisioned by -20- NovAtel and Constitution. And, finally, depending upon the evidence, it is conceivable that the doctrine of unjust enrichment may apply as asserted by Alberta. In any event, we cannot decide within the four corners of the agreement or on the face of this record that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that one party should prevail as a matter of law. Accordingly, this case must be developed further in the district court. Beyond views expressed herein, we express no opinion on the availability or merit of any defense or issue which may be raised on remand.