Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp. v. Britz

The defense is founded upon the proposition that once it was established that there are two people named George P. Britz, an ambiguity was disclosed, and all facts and circumstances tending to identify which George P. Britz the parties intended to name as buyer became admissible. The county court apparently proceeded upon the theory that once it was shown that George, Sr., wrote the name upon the contract, the ambiguity was resolved, and no further extrinsic evidence was admissible.

The county court said:

“It is the signature of Britz, Sr., as ‘George P. Britz’ which appears upon the contract…