Court Opinion

ID: 9588320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:32:50.815311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:08.729261
License: Public Domain

ERWIN, Justice
(concurring).
I specifically concur in the disposition of the issues raised in the majority opinion, but would go further and remove an existing ambiguity in Alaska’s “parol evidence rule”.
The majority opinion returns to the “objective theory” of interpretation of contracts followed by the Restatement of Contracts 1 and Professor Williston2 and which had been specifically adopted in Alaska3 prior to the case of Alaska Placer Co. v. Lee, 455 P.2d 218 (Alaska 1969). This approach requires the court to view the wording of a contract objectively to as*1306certain whether it is clear and unambiguous. If it is, then the obligations of the parties must be determined from the contract itself. Only if the contract is ambiguous may parol testimony be taken to ascertain the intention of the parties thereto.
In Alaska Placer Co. this court, while citing the previous Alaska cases, relied upon the opposing theory of contractual interpretation espoused by Professors Corbin4 and Wigmore.5 This approach would require a hearing in every case where, there is a dispute over contractual terms in order to ascertain the actual intention of the parties on the theory that words can mean different things to different people.
Thus, the law of Alaska now contains case authority for two opposing approaches. Since the majority opinion favors the “objective approach”, I would overrule Alaska Placer Co. directly and remove any possible uncertainty over its demise.6

. Restatement of Contracts §§ 229-231, 237 (1932).

. 4 Williston, The Law of Contracts §§ 600-601, 606, 610 (3d ed. 1961).

. Port Valdez Co. v. City of Valdez, 437 P.2d 768, 771 (Alaska 1968) ; Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 407 P.2d 1009, 1013 (Alaska 1965).

. 3 Corbin on Contracts § 536 (1960).

. 9 Wigmore on Evidence § 2462 (3d ed. 1940).

.See Erwin, Parol Evidence or Not Parol Evidence in Alaska, 8 Alaska Law Journal 20 (1970).