Opinion ID: 599205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is the MOU ambiguous?

Text: 20 The district court examined extrinsic evidence as required by Brobeck and directed by this court in Remand Order. It concluded that the meaning of nonwithdrawable was clear and unequivocal, and rejected the possibility that it was ambiguous. Findings at 16. This conclusion of law was erroneous. 21 The MOU nowhere defines its terms. It includes a number of references that can be understood only by going outside the four corners of the document: load growth, maximum simultaneous demand, contract rate of delivery and so on. The frequency with which nonwithdrawable appears, and particularly in its repeated use in the phrase present nonwithdrawable customers, suggests that it also may have a specialized meaning unique to the MOU. 22 More important, however, is the fact that nonwithdrawable is reasonably susceptible of interpretation in either direction. Since, as Western argues, the three stated purposes represent the limits of its legal ability to sell power, one reasonably would expect the MOU to accommodate this reality. Nothing in the language of the MOU requires that nonwithdrawability be free of any and all exceptions. On the other hand, nothing in the language of the MOU requires that the three stated purposes be included. Under Appellees' interpretation, Western agreed to provide power to the parties to the MOU that would not be withdrawable for any purpose. If withdrawals become necessary in order to fulfill Western's statutory or contractual obligations, Appellees insist that they come from other customers to which Western had made no commitment for absolutely nonwithdrawable power. 23 The MOU is not rendered internally inconsistent by either interpretation of nonwithdrawable. It is an ambiguous contract as defined by Brobeck: one that is reasonably susceptible of conflicting readings. 24