Interpretation of Contracts:
• In Miller v. Miller, 1 So.3d 815 (La.App.2009) the contract should be interpreted according to the intent of the parties at the time that the instrument was written and in the plain, ordinary meaning attributed to the contract.
• Parole evidence should only be used to determine the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made, not after the fact the only time that a contract's meaning cannot be ascertained is when the terms are ambiguous or when there is an interpretation issue.
• If a contract is ambiguous, then outside evidence may be considered, or the ambiguity will be counted against the person who drew up the contract or the person who is contesting the meaning.
• On its face the case may appear to be straightforward, however there is ambiguity in the time that Darrel was to begin setting funds aside, how much he was to set aside, how the funds were to be kept, etc.
• In order for Lisa to be successful in her suit, she must present evidence to support her asserted interpretation of the provision. Because she is the one filing suit, the ambiguity of the language would favor Darrel.
• The suit before the court, decided in favor of Lisa based upon the Parol Evidence Rule. In the appellate court, the decision was in favor of Darrel because of the ambiguity of the language in the agreement.
• In Black Hills Investments, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc. 146 Cal.App.4 th 833, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 263 (4 Dist. 2007) the contract was void because the terms were in direct conflict with California Statutes that state in specific terms that a contract for purchase is not valid unless the filing of a parcel map with subdivisions has been done with the appropriate government agency. The filing occurred after the fact of the contract.
• The contracts violated the prohibition codified in the State's Statutes because they were contracts to sell unsubdivided parcels of real property before Albertson's recorded a parcel map in compliance with the SMA Statute.
• Also, the contracts did not comply with the exception to the rule because they expressly permitted Albertson's to waive the condition that a parcel map be recorded prior to the closing date, and were therefore void.
In order to establish an implied contract, Mr. D needs to be appointed for a service and he should expect to be paid by Bank M.
Also Bank M should know that Mr. D is expected to be paid by them for the service he has been appointed, else, Mr., D would have the chance to reject the employment with bank M.
As per the case, Mr. D was appointed as a credit development officer for bank M, whom they agreed to pay for the services and to which D agreed to offer the services.
The initial hiring and duties of the position were discussed between the parties and were thus express and not implied. So, the terms of the employment manual and the compensation plan were express and not implied.