Court Opinion

ID: 9536266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:56:53.873346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:29.738412
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent for one reason: There are two ways to interpret 3(c), i. e., 1) termination by the company of an employment, resulting in liability to purchase stock by the latter, and 2) termination by the employee, resulting in no obligation on the part of the company to purchase the stock. The language is not so clear, as Markosian insists, as to resolve doubts. The language being subject to more than one interpretation, I am of the opinion that parol evidence is permissible to resolve such doubts, and thus to explain the contract’s terms as the parties intended them to mean. This would require further proceedings, in turn requiring a declaration by this court that a partial summary judgment at this juncture is premature. If such doubts then cannot be resolved factually by such parol evidence, it would follow that the purported contract was nudum pactum on account of uncertainty.
ELLETT, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HENRIOD, J.