There is ambiguity in a contract if the terms are duplicitous, uncertain, unclear, indistinct, difficult to comprehend, or open to various interpretations. Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49, 108 S.E.2d 708, 709 (1959). When a contract is unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms, Ins. Concepts, Inc., 639 F.2d at 1112, and parol evidence about a party's intent may not be introduced, Early, 108 S.E.2d at 710.
n the part of the Lessee or its contractors,licensees, agents or employees12(c)Liability Insurance RequirementsFor the foregoingpurpose, the Lessee agrees during the term hereof tomaintain adequate public liability and other insurancewith reputable insurance companies approved by Lessor, andupon request, to furnish Lessor with certificates ofinsurance evidencing such fact. The insurance coverageto be maintained by Lessee shall be as follows(i) Comprehensive general liability insurance againstclaims for bodily injury, death and property damageoccurring in or about the premises, affording minimumsingle limit protection of One Hundred Thousand Dollars($100,000)with respect to personal injury or death andproperty damage occurring or resulting from oneoccurrence; and(ii) Workmen's Compensation and employer's liabilityinsurance in accordance with the statutory requirementsof the State of GeorgiaErie Railroad Co. v.Tompkins 304 U.S. 64 58 S.Ct. 817 82 L.Ed. 1188 13-2-1 See also Early v.Kent 215 Ga. 49 108 S.E.2d 708 Sims' Crane Service, Inc. v. RelianceIns. Co. 514 F. Supp. 1033 1036 aff'd 667 F.2d 30 part of thebargainTuxedoPlumbing Heating Co. v. Lie-Nielsen 245 Ga. 27 262 S.E.2d 794 795 See Pettus v. APC, Inc. 162 Ga. App. 804 293 S.E.2d 65 Central Warehouse Development Corp. v.Nostalgia, Inc. 210 Ga. App. 15 435 S.E.2d 230 232 Seealso Frank Briscoe Co. v. Georgia Sprinkler Co. 713 F.2d 1500 1504TuxedoAlimentaProcessing Corp. v. South Georgia Pecan Co. 185 Ga. App. 330 364 S.E.2d 84 AlimentaAlimentaTuxedosimilarAlimentaAlimentaTuxedoSee Alimenta 364 S.E.2d at 86-87 third party claimsSee Vasche v. Habersham Marina 209 Ga. App. 263 433 S.E.2d 671 673 Liability Insurance RequirementsliabilitySee McAbeeConstruction Co. v. Georgia Kraft Co. 178 Ga. App. 496 343 S.E.2d 513 514-15 See Tuxedo, supra 262 S.E.2d at 795 . . . . .
ORDER Carsello v. Touchton, 231 Ga. 878 204 S.E.2d 589 Worth v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 142 Ga. App. 59 60 234 S.E.2d 802 Freeman v. Continental Gin Co., 381 F.2d 459 Honea v. Gilbert, 236 Ga. 218 219 223 S.E.2d 115 Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49 49-50 108 S.E.2d 708 General Wholesale Beer Co. v.Theodore Hamm Co., 567 F.2d 311 313 R. S. Helms, Inc. v. GST Development Co., 135 Ga. App. 845 848 219 S.E.2d 458 See generallyCorbin onContracts,Batson-Cook Co. v. Georgia Marble Setting Co., 112 Ga. App. 226 229-30 144 S.E.2d 547 E. g., Southern Railway Co. v.Insurance Company of North America, 228 Ga. 23 183 S.E.2d 912 Blitch v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 122 Ga. 711 50 S.E. 945 Binswanger Glass Co. v. Beers ConstructionCo., 141 Ga. App. 715 234 S.E.2d 363 Georgia PortsAuthority v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 135 Ga. App. 859 219 S.E.2d 467 Benson Paint Co. v. Williams ConstructionCo., 128 Ga. App. 47 195 S.E.2d 671 Hearn v. Central ofGeorgia Railway Co., 22 Ga. App. 1 95 S.E. 368 See Brown v. SeaboardCoast Line Railroad Co., 554 F.2d 1299 cert.denied, 434 U.S. 975 98 S.Ct. 533 54 L.Ed.2d 467 Manchester Marble Co. v. Rutland Railroad Co., 100 Vt. 232 136 A. 394 SeeSeaboard Coast Line RailroadCo. v. Dockerty, 135 Ga. App. 540 218
Because the intended meaning of "proposed conservation easement" is open to various interpretations, it is legally ambiguous. See Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49, 50(1), 108 S.E.2d 708 (1959) (ambiguity exists when a written instrument is "open to various interpretations"). The Court will thus resort to the rules of construction and parol evidence to resolve that ambiguity.
" This has been interpreted to mean that construction of a contract is a matter of law for the court so long as the contract is unambiguous. Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49 ( 108 S.E.2d 708) (1959); Bress v. Keep-Safe Industries, 155 Ga. App. 544 ( 271 S.E.2d 867) (1980). Ga. Code Ann. ยง 20-704 sets out rules of construction which courts are to apply in construing contracts.
An equitable petition by a taxpayer will lie to prevent an illegal diversion of tax money, such as an improper payment of salary to a public official. Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49, 51 ( 108 S.E.2d 708) (1959) and cits. Under ยง 6-103 (e), the director of finance is required to deduct from any payment due by the city to any person, firm or corporation the amount due the city prior to the payment of any such sum.
Prior to the trial court's ruling on the motions for summary judgment the parties stipulated to the court that "the contract involved is plain and definite." When a contract is plain and definite the construction of said contract is a matter of law to be submitted to the court for construction. Code ยง 20-701; Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49 ( 108 S.E.2d 708); Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Davis, 79 Ga. App. 336 (1c) ( 53 S.E.2d 571). The paramount factor to consider in the interpretation of a contract is the true intention of the parties involved, and if that intention is clear, and it violates no established rule of law, it will be enforced, if sufficient words are utilized to express said intention.
Henry v. Means, 137 Ga. 153 (2) ( 72 S.E. 1021)." Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49, 51 (2) ( 108 S.E.2d 708). The petition having alleged that the defendant Board had completed their lawful duties, they were not entitled to compensation and thus the trial judge erred in sustaining the general demurrer of the County Commissioner and dismissing the petition as to him. Judgment affirmed in case No. 23186 with direction.
Roberts v. Investors Savings Co., 154 Ga. 45 (5) ( 113 S.E. 398). See also Williams v. Waters, 36 Ga. 454 (3); Howard Soule v. Stephens, 52 Ga. 448; Arnold v. Malsby, 120 Ga. 586 ( 48 S.E. 132); Charles v. Sterling Security c. Co. 182 Ga. 480 (3) ( 185 S.E. 807); Thompson v. Riggs, 193 Ga. 632, 634 (2) ( 19 S.E.2d 299); Thompson v. Arrington, 209 Ga. 343 (2) ( 72 S.E.2d 293); Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49 ( 108 S.E.2d 708). The allegations in this amendment to the effect that the defendant's employee Funk had previously had business relations with Carter on oral understanding, and had confidence in him, are insufficient to establish any confidential relations between the parties.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Early v. Kent, 215 Ga. 49, 50 ( 108 SE2d 708) (1959). Unless an ambiguity exists, the court may not look outside the terms of the contract to consider surrounding circumstances or parol evidence.