Legal Opinion

Bartlam v. Tikka

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 3, 1981No. A7906-02690, CA 17278PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButtler, J.

In this action on a promissory note, defendants appeal the trial court’s granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, contending (1) that the contract to which the promissory note is subject is ambiguous and what the parties intended is a material issue of fact, and (2) even if not ambiguous, the contract does not express the intention of the parties and should be reformed. We affirm.

The underlying facts are uncontroverted. On December 22, 1976, defendants executed a contract for the purchase of all of the stock of Oregon Marine Supply Co.; plaintiff was one of the selling…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. May v. Chicago Insurance CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Stroh v. State Accident Insurance FundOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Gardner v. MeilingOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Wallis v. Crook County School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  5. Chambers v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 40, WASCO CTY.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1975

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Banister Continental Corp. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  2. Oakridge Cablevision, Inc. v. First Interstate BankCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  3. U.S. Life Title Insurance Co. of New York v. Department of Commerce & Insurance of TennesseeCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1988
  4. Matter of Marriage of DeslerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  5. Taylors Coffee Shop, Inc. v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API