Opinion ID: 864388
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the chancery court erred by

Text: FINDING THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO MEETING OF THE MINDS OF THE PARTIES. ¶11. Rotenberry argues that Hooker is procedurally barred from raising the issue of ambiguity because she failed to plead ambiguity in the trial court. He also asserts that the chancellor erred by finding there was 4 no meeting of the minds regarding the amount of Met Life debt to be deducted from the price stated in Hooker's offer. ¶12. The argument that Hooker is barred from raising the issue of contract ambiguity because of a procedural bar is without merit. We have held that ambiguity is not a defense that one must affirmatively set forth. Century 21 Deep South Props., Ltd. v. Keys, 652 So. 2d 707, 717 (Miss. 1995). Ambiguity analysis, unlike affirmative defense analysis, is by its very nature a necessary step in the examination of every contract. Id. at 717. While not explicitly set out as an affirmative defense, Hooker did, on the first page of her answer, state, The offer is ambiguous in that the term 'the debt' is a broad reference at best which could be construed and interpreted several different ways. ¶13. Rotenberry argues that the chancellor erred in finding there was no meeting of the minds as to the price in the agreement and allowing extrinsic evidence. We agree. The elements of a valid contract are: (1) two or more contracting parties, (2) consideration, (3) an agreement that is sufficiently definite, (4) parties with legal capacity to make a contract, (5) mutual assent, and (6) no legal prohibition precluding contract formation. Lanier v. State, 635 So. 2d 813, 826 (Miss. 1994). A contract is unenforceable if the material terms are not sufficiently definite. Leach v. Tingle, 586 So. 2d 799, 802 (Miss. 1991). Price is an essential term that must be stated with specificity. Id. at 803. The contract fails when the price has not been stated with specificity. Id. ¶14. When examining a contract, a court should first examine the four corners of the contract to determine how to interpret it. McKee v. McKee, 568 So. 2d 262, 266 (Miss. 1990). If the language in the contract is clear and unambiguous the intent of the contract must be effectuated. Pfisterer v. Noble, 320 So. 2d 383, 384 (Miss. 1975) See also Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So. 2d 5 349, 352 (Miss. 1990). Vagueness and ambiguity are more strongly construed against the party drafting the contract. Lamb Constr. Co. v. Town of Renova, 573 So. 2d at 1383. Only when the intent of the parties is not clear the Court should then resort to extrinsic evidence. Perkins, 558 So. 2d. at 353. Hooker's original letter which offered to sell her half of the farm states the price less the amount due Met Life. Nowhere in the letter does it indicate Hooker would only pay one-half of the amount owed Met Life. Since the letter was clear and unambiguous the chancellor should not have looked outside its four corners to determine the parties' intentions.1 Once accepted by Rotenberry, Hooker's letter offering to sell her interest in the land created a valid agreement.