Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Grow v. Marwick Development, Inc.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 10, 1980No. 16675Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMaughan, Justice

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in this action. I disagree with the *1253majority opinion that paragraph 11B must be deemed ambiguous; and, therefore, evidence must be taken to determine the intent of the parties at the time they entered into the contract.

Paragraph 11B provides:

“At any time, and for whatever length of time, the contract may be delinquent or in default by Buyer, for any reason the interest rate on all amounts unpaid under this contract shall increase to eighteen percent (18%) per annum. The Seller further covenants and agrees that he will not default in the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Thomas J. Peck & Sons, Inc. v. Lee Rock Products, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Big Butte Ranch, Inc. v. HolmUtah Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Winegar v. Smith Investment Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API