Court Opinion

ID: 9660578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:16:27.040832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:20.777393
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I disagree that the finding of the trial judge that the Letter of Credit #33 applied only to the bonds applicable to the College Park Shopping Center project has been shown to be clearly erroneous. Merely because the word “bonds” is plural rather than singular is not a sufficient basis as I see it, to render the letter of credit beyond doubt as to the intention of the parties. That intention is to be gathered from the entire context of the agreement. Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Murry, 231 Ark. 559, 331 S.W.2d 98 (1960). Moreover, this instrument was drawn by the appellant and must be interpreted against the party which prepared it. American Insurance Co. v. Rowland, 177 Ark. 875, 8 S.W.2d 452 (1978). I would affirm the trial court.