Opinion ID: 725226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factual Findings and Interpretation of Terms

Text: As stated above, the factual findings of the district court are reviewed for clear error. A thorough review of the record leads to the conclusion that the lower court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, but rather are substantiated by the testimony of both parties. The task of deciding the legal import of those findings and interpreting the agreement is quite demanding. The cardinal rule for interpretation of contracts is to ascertain the intention of the parties and to give effect to that intention consistent with legal principles. Union Planters Nat'l Bank v. American Home Assurance Co., 865 S.W.2d 907, 912 (Tenn.Ct.App.1993) (citations omitted). The court is required, if the contract is ambiguous, to determine the intention of the parties not alone from the language of the contract but also from the surrounding facts and circumstances. HMF Trust v. Bankers Trust Co., 827 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991) (citations omitted). Under Tennessee law [t]he purpose of interpreting an instrument is to see what is the intention expressed by the words used. If from the imperfection of language it is impossible to know what the intention is without inquiring further, then see what the circumstances were with reference to which the words were used, and what was the object, appearing from those circumstances, which the persons using them had in view. Id. (citing Barretsville Bank & Trust Co. v. Bolton, 187 S.W.2d 306, 310 (Tenn.1945)). Applying these tenets in a de novo review of this case, we agree with the interpretation divined by the district court.