Opinion ID: 2790598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kansas Contract Law

Text: Under Kansas law, “[t]he question whether a binding contract was entered into depends on the intention of the parties and is a question of fact.” Reimer v. Waldinger Corp., 959 P.2d 914, 916 (Kan. 1998); see also Hays v. Underwood, 411 P.2d 717, 720-21 (Kan. 1966) (explaining that conflicting evidence and competing inferences as to the existence and terms of a contract present fact questions). “[W]hether a party’s duty under a contract was based on a condition precedent is” also a fact question, Cravotta v. Deggingers’ Foundry, Inc., 215 P.3d 636, 642 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009), as is the question of breach, see Wichita Clinic, P.A. v. Louis, 185 P.3d 946, 959 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “[I]nterpretation of the written terms of a contract, however, [is] a question of law.” Reimer, 959 P.2d at 916. -6- A contract may be oral, written, or a mixture of both. See, e.g., Chilson v. Capital Bank of Miami, 701 P.2d 903, 907 (Kan. 1985). “Whether an ambiguity exists in a written instrument is a question of law for the court.” Hollenbeck v. Household Bank, 829 P.2d 903, 906 (Kan. 1992). “[W]here ambiguity or uncertainty is involved, the parties’ intent may be determined from all the language used in the contract, the circumstances existing when the agreement was made, the object sought to be obtained, and other circumstances, if any, which tend to clarify the intention of the parties.” Id. “The terms of an oral contract and the consent of the parties may be proven by the parties’ acts and by the attending circumstances, as well as by the words that the parties employed.” Unified Sch. Dist. No. 446, Independence, Kan. v. Sandoval, 286 P.3d 542, 546 (Kan. 2012).