Court Opinion

ID: 9688502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:52:10.349192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:39.748747
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
BLOODWORTH, Justice.
In brief supporting application for rehearing, appellant Halstead insists that our original opinion is in error in four particulars :
“1. Failure to construe the written contract.
*649“2. Holding that authority to do necessary undercut changed a cost-plus contract to a unit price contract.
“3. Holding that as a matter of law proof of quantity fulfills the duty of a cost-plus contractor to keep accurate cost records.
“4. Permitting to stand, as not excessive, a verdict substantially greater than that justified under the uncontradicted testimony of the Plaintiff’s own expert witness.”
We think we have sufficiently answered contentions 2-4 in our original opinion, at least to our satisfaction. '
With respect to contention 1, it is argued that we have tacitly approved construction of a written contract by the jury, contrary to the rule of our decisions. We think not.
It is, of course, fundamental in our law that it is the duty of the court and not the jury to “analyze and determine the meaning of a contract * * * when its terms are clear and certain, and also [to] ascertain whether or not it is ambiguous * * Air Conditioning Engineers v. Small, 259 Ala. 171, 176, 65 So.2d 698, 703 (1953) [Emphasis ours].
When, however, its terms are doubtful of meaning or the language is ambiguous, the pre-contract negotiations and conduct of the parties may be looked to by the jury as an aid in interpreting the contract. Air Conditioning Engineers v. Small, supra, where this Court held:
“ * * * if it [the .contract] is found to be ambiguous, but not void for uncertainty, its meaning may be clarified by a consideration of the facts and circumstances almnde and in pais, and when so it is the province of the jury to ascertain those facts and draw inferences from them which carries to the jury the whole issue upon proper instructions by the court.”
We think the terms of the contract in question here fall within the ambit of the rule of Air Conditioning Engineers v. Small, supra, and the issues here were properly submitted to the jury.
Opinion extended.
Application for rehearing overruled.
HEFLIN, C. J., and FAULKNER, AL-MON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.