Standard Rice Company, Inc. v. Dilday

It appears certain that, but for the. insertion of the phrase, “to be milled on toll, these prices 'guaranteed, ’ ’ there was nothing about which there could have been any litigation. The three “Rough Rice Purchase Contracts,” each representing a separate sale, read in connection with the letter of April 27, 1933, as the majority- concede they must be, make complete and unambiguous written contracts for the sale of. the rice. The letter is a part of each, of the three Rough Rice Purchase Contracts and must be read as a part of each of them. The contracts are therefore identical in terms and…