Court Opinion

ID: 9461029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:04:16.544858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:51.752817
License: Public Domain

LAY, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Although I cannot concur in the majority’s reasoning used to affirm the district court, I concur in the result reached.
I cannot accept the majority’s reliance on the mutual assent doctrine. The authorized agents of both companies executed the same contract and regardless what they thought as to how the contract was to be construed they were bound by its actual terms. As stated in 1 Williston on Contracts, § 95, pp. 349-350 (3d ed. 1957):
It is often said broadly that if the parties do not understand the same thing there is no contract. But it is clear that so broad a statement cannot be justified. It is even conceivable that a contract may be formed which is in accordance with the intention of neither party. If a written contract is entered into, the meaning and effect of the contract depends on the interpretation given the written language by the court. The court will give that language its natural and appropriate meaning.
*1144Nor do I agree that Mr. Dorman lacked authority to execute the agreement. If he lacked actual authority, which in my judgment he possessed, he nevertheless was cloaked with ostensible authority to execute the contract and that is all he needed. However, I agree with the result reached. The March 11, 1970 agreement required that before it was to become operative the contract had to be approved and ratified by both corporations. This never occurred. On this basis only, I would affirm the judgment of the district court.