Opinion ID: 1613718
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clean Bill of Health.

Text: The original contract, signed by Miller and Ducheneaux on July 14, 1987, required Miller to provide a clean bill of health for the cattle. The trial court found Miller breached the contract for the sale of cattle to Ducheneaux by failing to provide a clean bill of health, which would allow import of the herd [into] South Dakota. South Dakota law requires an owner to test female cattle for Bangs within thirty days prior to importation into South Dakota for dairy or breeding purposes. Moreover, female cattle must have been calfhood vaccinated against brucellosis. Finally, no cattle may be imported into South Dakota if they originated from a herd that, when tested, reveals suspects or reactors, until the entire herd subsequently passes a negative test. SDCL 40-7-20 (1985) (amended 1990 and 1992) (this statute, as it appeared at all times relevant to this appeal is set out in note 4 infra ). Miller asserts the language was inserted into the July contract to assure Ducheneaux the quarantine on the herd would be released. The cattle were released from quarantine on July 22, 1987, with the exception of twelve suspects and thirty-one nonvaccinates. [3] Thus, Miller asserts the trial court's finding that he breached the contract was clearly erroneous. Ducheneaux counters, arguing Miller failed to provide a clean bill of health of any kind because each time the cattle were tested by the authorities, reactors and/or suspects were found. He further argues, Miller knew 198 head could never be shipped to Ducheneaux's ranch in South Dakota because they had not been calfhood vaccinated as required by SDCL 40-7-20. [4] Ducheneaux argues a clean bill of health means the cattle must have passed the brucellosis tests required by state and federal law for sale or interstate shipment of cattle. Obviously, the parties disagree about what providing a clean bill of health means. Before extrinsic matters can be examined to determine the parties' intent, a provision must be ambiguous. [A] contract may be said to be ambiguous when `it is reasonably capable of being understood in more than one sense. Enchanted World Doll Museum v. Buskohl, 398 N.W.2d 149, 151 (S.D.1986) (quoting Ponderosa-Nevada, Inc. v. Venners, 90 S.D. 579, 243 N.W.2d 801 (1976); Jones v. American Oil Co., 87 S.D. 384, 387, 209 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1973)). Whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is ordinarily a question of law. Id.; Jensen v. Pure Plant Food Intern'l., Ltd., 274 N.W.2d 261, 264 (S.D.1979). A contract is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree on its proper construction or their intent upon executing the contract. 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 338 (1991). Accord Johnson v. Johnson, 291 N.W.2d 776, 778-79 (S.D. 1980). Rather a contract is ambiguous only when it is capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire integrated agreement and who is cognizant of the customs, practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the particular trade or business. 17A Am.Jur.2d § 338. See also City of Sioux Falls v. Henry Carlson Co., Inc., 258 N.W.2d 676, 679 (S.D.1977). Dr. McCarthy testified a clean bill of health refers to a veterinarian's statement that, to his knowledge, the animals are not ill and have not been exposed to a contagious disease. [5] However, under cross-examination, Dr. McCarthy admitted the term means different things to different people in the cattle industry. He also pointed out the rather uniform definition of release from quarantine. That term means the cattle are free to move in the normal channels of commerce. The above testimony indicates an ambiguity may indeed have been injected into the contract because of Miller's use of the term clean bill of health. However, since Miller drafted the contract, any ambiguity, if one exists, does not help him. [O]ne who speaks or writes a contract can by exactness of expression more easily prevent mistakes in meaning than one whom with he is dealing[;] therefore[,] any doubts arising from ambiguity of language are resolved in favor of the latter. Buskohl, 398 N.W.2d at 152 (citing Williston on Contracts § 621 (1961)); Forester v. Weber, 298 N.W.2d 96, 97 (S.D.1980); Henry Carlson Co., 258 N.W.2d at 679. Ducheneaux and Miller both reside near Timber Lake, South Dakota. It is clear from Ducheneaux's testimony he informed Miller he needed the cattle to stock his ranch in South Dakota. Moreover, when Miller took out a loan to buy the cattle in New Mexico, he told the bank he would be bringing the cattle to South Dakota. Thus, there is ample evidence to indicate the parties' intent was to bring the cattle to South Dakota. The definition of clean bill of health utilized by the trial court was consonant with the parties' intent. We conclude the trial court was not clearly erroneous in interpreting the contract as requiring Miller to provide a clean bill of health so the cattle could be imported into South Dakota. [6]