Court Opinion

ID: 9527872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:35:14.087368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:15.519883
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(concurring):
Had the parties simply proceeded to perform on the basis of defendant’s acceptance of plaintiff’s bid, I would readily agree that defendant would appropriately bear the loss resulting from the confusion in this case since the bid clearly excluded the fan and defendant unqualifiedly accepted the bid. If this were such a case, defendant would bear the risk that the bid he accepted “sight unseen” will be different than he guesses it to be.
In this case, however, a subsequent, formal, written subcontract agreement was entered into by the parties. If, as defendant contends, that subcontract agreement unambiguously incorporates provisions which clearly require installation of the fan, I would as readily hold for defendant in the absence of language in the subcontract affirmatively excluding the fan from those provisions. If the subcontract tendered to plaintiff would require it to do more than it proposed to do in its bid, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to insist upon such refinements as will make the subcontract consistent with the accepted bid. Otherwise, plaintiff bears the risk that the superceding subcontract will require it to do more than it initially proposed to do.
Despite the parties’ efforts to have us view the case as one which, in effect, is governed by one or the other of the principles just discussed, the instant case is in a more fluid posture.
I of course agree with the main opinion, in which I fully concur, that interpretation of unambiguous contractual provisions is a question of law which we review as such, according the trial court’s resolution no particular deference. I also agree that if the contract is ambiguous, the trial court must entertain extrinsic evidence and the finder of fact must decide, as a matter of fact, what was intended, in which event we will defer in accordance with the doctrine ably explained in the main opinion. I wish to make clear, however, that the threshold question of whether or not the contract is
ambiguous is itself a question of law. See, e.g., Faulkner v. Farnsworth, 665 P.2d 1292, 1293 (Utah 1983). Thus, we must conclude, as a matter of law, that the contract is ambiguous before we go to the next step, namely that of evaluating the facts found under the restrictive and deferential standard by which factual findings are reviewed.
The instant subcontract is indeed ambiguous. One key ambiguity is of defendant’s own drafting, namely the curious phrase, included in the paragraph quoted in the main opinion, “with all pertaining on any other sheets.” The other salient ambiguity is part of the preprinted form: “The Contractor and the Subcontractor agree to be bound by the terms of the prime contract agreement, construction regulations, general conditions, plans and specifications, and any and all other contract documents.. ..” The trial court appropriately took evidence in an effort to answer the obvious questions: What “other sheets”? What “construction regulations”? What “other contract documents”? The testimony was in conflict. The testimony credited by the trial court adequately supports a finding that the bid sheet was “any other sheet,” that the depository’s rules and regulations constituted “construction regulations,” and that both the bid forms and the depository’s forms would be “other contract documents.” Any one of these findings would save plaintiff. All three findings are implicit in the court’s explicit findings that “the contract between the parties is ambiguous without reference to the use of the depository and bids submitted,” that “no proper interpretation of the contract between the parties can be made without reference to the bid,” that the bid “is an integral part of the contract,” and that the “rules and regulations of the sheet metal contractors bid depository” are “integral to the contract.” It is inconsequential on appeal that other testimony, if preferred, would have supported contrary findings.