Opinion ID: 526531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Should A & M/C Have Been Estopped From Raising Ambiguity

Text: 31 at Trial? 32 The district court ruled that A & M/C had an affirmative obligation prior to entering into the subcontract to seek explanation of the terms, and that by failing to meet this obligation, A & M/C is estopped from asserting ambiguity as a defense against UE & C's claim of breach. The district court also ruled that UE & C was justified in believing that A & M/C understood the meaning of the subcontract and had no need for additional clarification. 1 33 This issue presents a mixed question of law and fact. The district court's finding that UE & C relied on A & M/C's failure to seek clarification is a question of fact. Based on this factual finding, the estoppel of A & M/C is a matter of law. Under Arizona law, [e]stoppel is applied to prevent injustice and when 'it would be unconscionable to permit a person to maintain a position inconsistent with one in which he had acquiesced.'  Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 186, 540 P.2d 656, 658 (1975) (quoting Holmes v. Graves, 83 Ariz. 174, 177, 318 P.2d 354, 356 (1957)). Although UE & C may have relied on A & M/C's acquiescence of the contractual provisions, not to allow A & M/C later to claim that the subcontract is ambiguous would be inequitable. Indeed, the subcontract may not have been ambiguous at all from the perspective of A & M/C at the time it signed it, but nevertheless, its interpretation of certain contractual provisions may have been quite different from that of UE & C. 34