Diversified Realty, Inc. v. McElroy

McInturff, A.C.J.

(dissenting) I dissent. The contract in question clearly and expressly binds the McElroys personally. Nevertheless, the majority holds the contract ambiguous merely because the McElroys failed to sign the contract twice. I believe this result departs from historical precedent and the express intentions of the parties.

The McElroys signed a contract which "personally" bound them. Can they evade the clear consequences of contractual language merely by placing the names of the offices they held in the corporation under their signatures? I think not.

First, the language binds the…