Berry v. Heinz

4 Citing cases

  1. Intern. Feed Products v. Alfalfa Products

    337 N.W.2d 154 (N.D. 1983)   Cited 5 times

    Schwarting v. Schwarting, 310 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1981). Whether or not an ambiguity exists in a contract is a question to be determined by the court as a matter of law. Berry v. Heinz, 139 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 1965). In construing a written contract, its language is to govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity, Section 9-07-02, N.D.C.C., and the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone if possible.

  2. O'Connell v. Entertainment Enterprises

    317 N.W.2d 385 (N.D. 1982)   Cited 24 times
    Continuing employment does not prove the employment would have been terminated if the promises had not been made

    The intentions of the parties to a contract must be ascertained from the written contract alone, if possible, but where the contract is ambiguous it may be explained by reference to the circumstances under which it was made. Berry v. Heinz, 139 N.W.2d 145, 148 (N.D. 1965). Whether or not a contract or its terms are clear and unambiguous is a question of law. Schulz v. Hauck, 312 N.W.2d 360, 363 (N.D. 1981).

  3. Kruger v. Soreide

    246 N.W.2d 764 (N.D. 1976)   Cited 33 times
    In Kruger v. Soreide, 246 N.W.2d 764 (N.D. 1976), this court held that real estate agents claiming damages under exclusive listing agreements are required to prove consideration for the contract by performance of services.

    The court held that the broker was not entitled to a commission for the sale of the creamery alone, sold by the owner, on the grounds that the listing contract was not divisible but required the entire unit to be sold in one sale. In Berry v. Heinz, 139 N.W.2d 145, 148 (N.D. 1965), the court quoted approvingly from 12 Am.Jur.2d Brokers ยง 266, at 969, a portion of which is: ". . . where the broker is given an exclusive right to sell property, as distinguished from an exclusive agency, he is held entitled to the agreed commission, or at least damages, when a sale is made by the owner, and it is immaterial that he was not the procuring cause thereof, provided, however that the employment contract is supported by consideration and is not a mere unilateral offer, and provided also, according to some cases, that the broker has produced a ready, able and willing purchaser or can show damages."

  4. Johnson v. Auran

    214 N.W.2d 641 (N.D. 1974)   Cited 25 times
    Discussing the sufficiency of a note or memorandum to constitute a contract which meets the requirements of the statute of frauds

    The determination of the existence of an ambiguity in a contract is a question of law. Stetson v. Investors Oil, Inc., 140 N.W.2d 349 (N.D. 1966); Berry v. Heinz, 139 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 1965). In a more recent decision we held that whether an ambiguity exists in a will is a question of law for the court to determine.