Court Opinion

ID: 9664182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:05:58.693643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:02.989759
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result but would not rest the opinion on the admissibility of representations made by Peter Bruno to the appellant, a matter the majority finds is of prime importance.
I adopt the principle which the majority opinion quotes from Union Trust & Savings Bank v. State Bank, 170 N.W.2d 674, 677. Having done so and having considered the “extrinsic evidence is admissible which throws light on the situation of the parties, the antecedent negotiations, the attending circumstances and the objects they were thereby striving to attain,” I find nothing left requiring interpretation of the language used. It is clear, certain, and unambiguous that no legally binding obliga*614tion was created — or intended. I would so hold without resort to the statements made by plaintiff’s fund raiser at the time the pledge was signed.
REYNOLDSON and HARRIS, JJ., join in this special concurrence.