Legal Opinion

Northwest Sand & Gravel Co. v. Schlieper

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 1962PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

The appellant’s-main argument is that the agreement dated September 1, 1959, is unambiguous and riot properly susceptible to interpretation via parol evidence. We consider that the agreement is beset with ambiguity and that the taking of parol evidence was in order.

The instrument in question is dated September 1, 1959, and purports to exercise an option for a term' of five years commencing November 1, 1955; it further provides that “This notice of extension shall be deemed to be effective November 1, 1955.” The royalty rate is set at 15 cents per cubic yard. It is upon this agreement that the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wheelwright v. Pure Milk Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Corbett v. JoannesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Bitker & Gerner Co. v. Green Investment Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Kasten v. MarkhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Zweck v. D P Way Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Bruns v. Rennebohm Drug Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989
  3. Hope Acres, Inc. v. HarrisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Bruns v. Rennebohm Drug Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989
  5. Hope Acres, Inc. v. HarrisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API