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

Heading: The term gross receipts is ambiguous.

Text: The parties agree that gross receipts should be defined as weight times price, but disagree about what price should be inserted into this formula. Krossa argues that market price must be used in calculating gross receipts. All Alaskan maintains that while gross receipts may typically be calculated based on the price actually received by boats selling crab, no such figure exists in this case because the boats never owned or sold the crab. [14] Therefore, it argues, gross receipts should be defined by the artificial figure of $.50 per pound which All Alaskan intended to offer. In the context of the Dalmoreproduct/All Alaskan business venture, the term gross receipts is ambiguous. Black's Law Dictionary defines gross receipts as the total amount of money or the value of other considerations received from selling property or from performing services. [15] Following this definition, the SHELIKOF's gross receipts were zero, since the vessel never owned or sold any crab. All Alaskan itself received payment for services that it provided to Dalmoreproduct, but it would be absurd to interpret the contract as promising a single crew member 9% of the company's gross receipts from the entire venture. Neither of these possible literal interpretations of the term gross receipts is plausible; therefore, the term is ambiguous. [16] Because the plain language of the written agreement was ambiguous and the parties in fact understood the agreement differently, the superior court correctly concluded that no valid contract existed during the first week that Krossa worked on the SHELIKOF.