Opinion ID: 2995342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Principles Governing Contract

Text: Interpretation Before turning to the submissions of the parties concerning the December Contract, we set forth the general principles that will guide our inquiry. There does not seem to be any significant disagreement between the parties about the governing principles of Indiana contract law. This court has stated that, as a general rule, interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law. Bechtold v. Physicians Health Plan of N. Ind., Inc., 19 F.3d 322, 325 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Ryan v. Chromalloy Am. Corp., 877 F.2d 598, 602 (7th Cir. 1989)); see also Tri-Central High Sch. v. Mason, 738 N.E.2d 341, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (noting that interpretation of a contract is a question of law for which summary judgment is particularly appropriate). The Indiana law that governs interpretation of a contract is well settled. First, a court will endeavor to ascertain the parties’ intent by language used in the agreement to express obligations. Tri-Central High Sch., 738 N.E.2d at 344. The contract terms, including individual words, phrases and sentences, should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. See Ecorp, Inc. v. Rooksby, 746 N.E.2d 128, 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). However, the court cannot read portions of an agreement exclusive of other contractual provisions. Grandview Lot Owner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Harmon, 2001 WL 925721 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2001). Rather, the document must be read as a whole when attempting to determine the parties’ intentions. See First Fed. Sav. Bank of Ind. v. Key Markets, Inc., 559 N.E.2d 600, 603 (Ind. 1990). If this methodology indicates that the contract is unambiguous, the court may not consider any evidence beyond the four corners of the document to determine the parties’ intent. Tri-Central High Sch., 738 N.E.2d at 344; see also Crawford County Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Enlow, 734 N.E.2d 685, 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Ambiguity does not exist simply because the parties dispute the meaning of the contract’s terms. Ecorp, 746 N.E.2d at 131. Rather, an agreement contains ambiguities if reasonable people could come to different conclusions about the contract’s meaning. Id. Ambiguity may be generated by lack of clarity in the syntax of a sentence. See J. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts sec. 7.8 at 455-56 (3d ed. 1999). Moreover, just as the structure of a statute may cloud its meaning, the overarching structure of a contract may generate ambiguities as well. To the extent ambiguities exist, a contract may be explained or supplemented by evidence of consistent additional terms. Ind. Code 26-1-2-202(b). With these principles in mind, we turn to the text of the December Contract.