Court Opinion

ID: 9858544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:27:35.978793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:44.517105
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
The contract between Zitzow and Diede-rich is, to me, obviously ambiguous on its face. The mere labeling of Diederich as “buyer” rather than “optionee” is sufficient to raise doubt, at least as to the intent of the parties to the contract.
In determining the meaning of an ambiguous writing, the court must weigh the intrinsic evidence and make a finding of fact. Rule 52(a), NDRCivP applies. We have the choice of affirming or remanding for the preparation of more artful findings of fact. The majority opinion, by labeling the issue as one of law, evades the real question and permits this appellate court to perform a trial court function.