Opinion ID: 1409085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the foreign mission board appeal

Text: We first consider the Board's contention that the trial court erroneously allowed the jury to determine whether the oral contract imposed a duty upon the Board to take steps to protect the Wade children from their father's actions. The Board argues that there was no ambiguity in the contract regarding this issue and, therefore, the court, rather than the jury, had the duty to construe the contract. The Wades respond that the oral contract was capable of various interpretations, that it was not limited to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the family from external threats, and, therefore, that the trial court properly submitted the interpretation of the contract to the jury. When a court considers a written contract, the intent of the parties is presumed to be embodied in the contractual terms. If those terms are clear and unambiguous, it is the duty of the court to enforce them. Submitting a written contract to the jury for interpretation is proper only when the language is ambiguous. Winn v. Aleda Constr. Co., 227 Va. 304, 307, 315 S.E.2d 193, 195 (1984). Here, however, the intent of the parties has not been memorialized in writing. The standard for determining the intent of the parties to an oral contract is one of reasonable expectationthat is, the meaning which the party using the words should reasonably have expected them to be given by the other party. Richmond Eng. & Mfg. Corp. v. Loth, 135 Va. 110, 140-42, 115 S.E. 774, 782-83 (1923). 4 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts §§ 603, 605 (3rd ed. 1961). Interpretation of this contract requires a determination not of what could be within its scope, but of what the Board could anticipate Mrs. Wade would reasonably expect the contract to encompass. Whether the interpretation of the contract was for the court or the jury depends on whether the evidence on that issue was clear or ambiguous. If, from the evidence presented, reasonable people could draw different conclusions as to reasonable expectations of the parties, the question of the meaning of the contract is properly presented to a jury for resolution. Richmond Inc. v. Ewing's Sons, 200 Va. 593, 596, 106 S.E.2d 595, 597 (1959). The only evidence concerning the terms of this contract is found in the following testimony of Mrs. Wade: Q. What did they tell you or what did you ask them about your children, what would happen to them in Africa? A. We discussed their schooling. We discussed health issues, whether doctors would be available, how we would take care of the health of our children, what kind of services would be available, what the Board's requirements were, like a yearly physical was required to check on them, on the couple and the family. We knew that Africa was a very unstable continent, and we had questions about our safety and what the Board would do at that time. Q. Did any of the representatives there in the sessions or individually with you make any representations to you in the areas of health, welfare, and safety of you and your family?