Court Opinion

ID: 9721782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:09:19.483047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.674350
License: Public Domain

COWETT, J.*
concur in the majority’s result. Despite my opinion that the interpretation of paragraph 1.5 as rendered by the jury and concurred *896in by the trial court, is a tenable interpretation based upon the record before us, I agree that a more reasonable interpretation based upon the entire record is the one rendered here. Since the Parsons case requires us to independently interpret paragraph 1.5 from a record disclosing uncontroverted nonconflicting extrinsic evidence and the contract itself, we choose to adopt the inferences therefrom propounded by the appellant NHL rather than those inferences vigorously propounded by respondent MOM.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 20, 1986, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 16, 1986.

 Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.