Opinion ID: 1604971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Amendment to the Russell Option Agreement

Text: The original option agreement signed by the Russells contained a single sentence describing the price to be paid to the Russells for their property. That sentence read as follows: The purchase price shall be the average of the two appraisals provided, however, in no event shall the purchase price be less than $4,500 per acre and further provided that the purchase price shall in no event be less than the price per acre paid to any other landowner included in the project planned for this Property. Similarly, the amendment to the option agreement signed by the Russells contained a single sentence describing the price to be paid to the Russells for their property. That sentence reads as follows: It is hereby agreed that the purchase price for the Property is Four Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 ($4,500.00) per acre. On the basis of the well established principles stated by this Court in such cases as Harbison v. Strickland, 900 So.2d 385 (Ala.2004), and Johnson-Rast & Hays, Inc. v. Cole, 294 Ala. 32, 310 So.2d 885 (1975), I must dissent as to the conclusion reached by the main opinion regarding the amendment to the Russells' option agreement. As this Court stated in Harbison : `[I]t is elementary that it is the terms of the written contract, not the mental operations of one of the parties, that control its interpretation.' Kinmon v. J.P. King Auction Co., 290 Ala. 323, 325, 276 So.2d 569, 570 (1973) (citing Todd v. Devaney, 265 Ala. 486, 92 So.2d 24 (1957)). `Stated another way, the law of contracts is premised upon an objective rather than a subjective manifestation of intent approach. ' Lilley v. Gonzales, 417 So.2d 161, 163 (Ala.1982). `[A] court should give the terms of the agreement their clear and plain meaning and should presume that the parties intended what the terms of the agreement clearly state.' Turner v. West Ridge Apartments, Inc., 893 So.2d 332 (Ala. 2004) (quoting Ex parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales, Inc., 718 So.2d 33, 36 (Ala. 1998)). 900 So.2d at 391 (emphasis added). In essence, the main opinion states that it is not clear that the amendment to the option agreement definitely and certainly modifies the most-favored-nation clause. Based on an objective approach, I must conclude that it does. The requirement articulated in Johnson-Rast & Hays, Inc., is that the amendment to the contract be definite and certain as to the terms of the modification.  294 Ala. at 37, 310 So.2d at 889. Read objectively, the terms of the amendment to the option agreement are indeed definite and certain as to the price to be paid for the Russells' property. It also is true that the original option agreement states that no modification of this Option and no waiver of any of its terms and conditions shall be affected unless made in writing and duly executed by the parties hereto.  The amendment to the option agreement satisfies this condition.