We have been cited to a rule of interpretation of contracts which states generally that if a contract is ambiguous, the terms thereof should be construed against the party which prepared it. Monsur v. Thompson, 300 So.2d 655 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974). We do not find that rule applicable herein.

La.Stats. Ann. Civil Code arts. 1957, 1958; Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Co., 249 La. 85, 185 So.2d 210, 213 (1966); Monsur v. Thompson, 300 So.2d 655 (La.Ct.App. 1974). In Despaux v. California Co., 286 F. Supp. 558 (E.D.La. 1968), a district court held that an indemnitee could not secure reimbursement for the expenses which it incurred in defending a wrongful death claim arising from negligent acts.

Notedly, monthly and yearly "interest paid" statements were furnished to Seals.Cf. Monsur v. Thompson, 300 So.2d 655, 658-659 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ denied, 303 So.2d 187 (La. 1974). Defendants' Reconventional Demand

If a contract is vague and ambiguous a court may consider parol evidence in order to ascertain the true intent of the parties. Monsur v. Thompson, 300 So.2d 655 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974), writ denied 303 So.2d 187. (La. 1974). In this case the trial court correctly found the purchase agreement vague and indefinite.

Finally, although there is some ambiguity as to the amount of stipulated monthly payments for liquidation of the balance of the sales price, there is no ambiguity as to the total sales price, or the amount of the balance due as of November 2, 1963, these being set forth with specificity in the written contract introduced in evidence. As to the ambiguity with reference to the amount of the stipulated monthly payments the court allowed the introduction of parol evidence and accepted the testimony of plaintiff-appellee that although the late Mr. Aertker Sr. originally desired to receive a $55.00 per month payment he condescended at the time the agreement was executed to accept $45.00 monthly. It is not disputed that the contract in question was prepared by Mr. Aertker Sr. and therefore under our rules of construction if ambiguous the contract is to be construed against him who prepared it. LSA-C.C. Articles 1957 and 1958. Monsur v. Thompson, 300 So.2d 655 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974). In any event, as found by the trial court, appellants accepted the payments as made by plaintiff over a period of twelve years without objection. Under these circumstances appellants cannot now urge that because of this ambiguity the contract is null or that Mrs. Tullis failed to comply with the agreement.

The forms were prepared and printed by Staple Cotton and they were sent to Pickett for his signature. The law is settled that a contract containing ambiguities must be construed against the writer of the contract. Monsur v. Thompson, 300 So.2d 655 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974). Wurzlow v. Placid Oil Company, 279 So.2d 749 (La.App.

All clauses of agreements are interpreted the one by the other, giving to each the sense that results from the entire act. LSA-C.C. art. 1955. Where a contract is ambiguous, it is to be construed against the party who prepared it. LSA-C.C. art. 1957, and 1958; Monsur v. Thompson, 300 So.2d 655 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1974). Article 2474 of the Louisiana Civil Code provides that "The seller is bound to explain himself clearly respecting the extent of his obligations: any obscure or ambiguous clause is construed against him."

The law of this state is settled that where a contract is ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to establish the parties' intent. Gulf States Finance Corporation v. Airline Auto Sales, Inc., 248 La. 591, 181 So.2d 36 (1965); Monsur v. Thompson, 300 So.2d 655 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974). The contract was prepared by (now Judge) I. J. Guillory. Judge Guillory, who was not acting as a representative of either side, testified that the intent was that CLECO would be responsible for installations on plaintiffs' land, and that the Standard Terms and Conditions would come into play only after such installations were made.