Opinion ID: 356198
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Construction Against Drafting Party.

Text: 27 Our conclusion is also supported by the general rule that an ambiguity will be resolved against the one who prepared the document. We recognize that this rule should be applied only where, after examining the entire contract, the relation of the parties, their intentions, and the circumstances under which they executed the contract, the ambiguity remains unresolved. United States ex rel. Yardley Drilling Co. v. Erickson Paving Co., 465 F.2d 396, 400 (9th Cir. 1972); see also Saturn Oil and Gas Co. v. Northern Natural Gas Co., supra at 302. These conditions are met in this case. Thus, since this was a standard form contract presented by H & H to UBM with little opportunity for negotiation, any remaining ambiguity should be resolved against H & H, the draftsman. We therefore affirm the district court's action in interpreting the ambiguous contract to mean that profit and overhead could be recovered in a payment for materials delivered but not yet installed. 28 AFFIRMED.