Opinion ID: 1436132
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Moody's Complaint

Text: [¶ 15] Moody contends that the various interpretations of the meaning of a wild card render the contract ambiguous, and therefore, the court erred in deciding the case on a motion to dismiss. In the alternative, Moody urges us to interpret the term wild card in accordance with what he asserts to be the generally prevailing meaning of the term, that is, that the holder of a wild card is free to determine the value of the card that is designated as the wild card. We disagree. [¶ 16] The question of whether a contract is ambiguous, and if unambiguous, the interpretation of that contract, are questions of law and are reviewed de novo. Acadia Ins. Co. v. Buck Constr. Co., 2000 ME 154, ¶ 8, 756 A.2d 515, 517; Briggs v. Briggs, 1998 ME 120, ¶ 6, 711 A.2d 1286, 1288. Language is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible to different interpretations. Acadia Ins. Co., 2000 ME 154, ¶ 9, 756 A.2d at 517. [¶ 17] Moody's interpretation would make every Wild Card Cash ticket a winning ticket. Contracts are only ambiguous when they are reasonably susceptible to different interpretations. Id. Moody's interpretation is not only unreasonable, it is frivolous. [7] It is clear from the back of the lottery ticket, where it states that the odds of winning are 1:3.59, that the State intended to include an element of chance when it created the Wild Card Cash game. An interpretation that removes the element of chance does not effect the parties' intentions and does not consider the subject matter, motive, and purpose of the agreement, as well as the object to be accomplished. Handy Boat Serv., Inc. v. Prof'l Servs., Inc., 1998 ME 134, ¶ 7, 711 A.2d 1306, 1308. See also State v. Bussiere, 155 Me. 331, 154 A.2d 702, 705 (1959) ([I]t is generally agreed among the authorities that there are three essential elements necessary to constitute a lottery: (1) prize, (2) chance, and (3) consideration.). [¶ 18] Accordingly, the Superior Court correctly determined that the contract between the State and Moody is unambiguous. Because there is no ambiguity regarding whether Moody's ticket was a winner, as a matter of law, the State did not breach a duty to pay. See Rivers v. Amato, 2003 ME 87, ¶¶ 5, 10, 827 A.2d 827, 829-30. Without a breach, even when examining the complaint in the light most favorable to Moody, Moody's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.