Opinion ID: 1467528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: installment payments

Text: Egan contends that if the Agreement is valid, the trial court should have construed it to require installment payments of principal, as well as interest, on the amount in excess of the one percent paid for the stock purchased by ASI after Rohrich's death. In connection with his assertion Egan makes three arguments. First, he states, Egan moved for leave to plead that installment payments were required by the [A]greement and the court denied the motion. The Record shows that this misstates the court's ruling. In fact, the court expressly granted leave to amend. Second, Egan states: It is normal and customary for installment payments to be made in purchases of businesses. The expert Myer so stated, as did Miss Bowman regarding Answering's purchase of smaller companies over the years. Once again, the Record indicates otherwise: Myer was, at best, equivocal about what the custom is and never answered affirmatively that installment payments were the normal and customary method of payments. Third, Egan contends that as the drafter of the Agreement, McNamara is subject to the rule that any ambiguities must be resolved against him. As general counsel, McNamara could have inserted anti-installment language had he so chosen. The failure to do so, Egan contends, requires the conclusion that installments were intended under North American Graphite Corp. v. Allan, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 157, 184 F.2d 387, 390 (1950). This argument is meritless for two reasons. McNamara was not the drafter of the Agreement although he did review the document to assess its impact on ASI. Moreover, North American Graphite is incorrectly cited. That case is authority only for the proposition that ambiguities in a contract must be resolved against the drafter. The case says nothing about drawing any inference such as the one Egan would have this court draw. Egan does not make any affirmative argument why the Agreement should be construed in any particular way. He points to nothing either in the Agreement itself or in the Record to suggest that any of the parties ever intended that the Agreement be construed to require installment payments of the principal. The Agreement was construed by the trial court, as it correctly could be, to require only installment payments of interest, with the principal to be paid off in 15 years. We see no basis for disturbing this ruling by the trial court.