BUNDTE ET AL.

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Hicks v. The Quaker Oats Co., 662 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …of fact. But “[contracts are not rendered ambiguous by the mere fact that the parties do not agree upon their proper construction.” Freeman, supra, at 465 (quoting Whiting v. Chicago Stoker Corp., 171 F. 2d 248, 250-52 (7th Cir. 1948), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 915, 69 S.Ct. 1155, 93 L.Ed. 1725 (1949)). If the meaning of the terms is clear and unambiguous, the question is one of law, despite the differing contentions of the parties. However, after examining the Crutchfield letter we are convinced that there i…
• Clayman v. Goodman Props., Inc., 518 F.2d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
  …th Cir. 1970) ; Tennessee Consol. Coal Co. v. UMW, 416 F. 2d 1192, 1198 (6th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 964, 90 S.Ct. 999, 25 L.Ed.2d 256 (1970) ; Whiting Stoker Co. v. Chicago Stoker Corp., 171 F. 2d 248, 251 (7th Cir. 1.948), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 915, 69 S.Ct. 1155, 93 L.Ed. 1725 (1949) ; Eastmount Constr. Co. v. Transport Mfg. & Equip. Co., 301 F. 2d 34, 41 (8th Cir. 1962) ; Airborne Freight Corp. v. McPherson, 427 F. 2d 1283, 1285 (9th Cir. 1970) ; Dixon v. Wilson, 192 A. 2d 289, 291 (D.C.App.…
• SUN OIL Co. v. The Vickers Ref. Co., Inc., 414 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1969)
  …ount Constr. Co. v. Transport Mfg. Equip. Co., 301 F. 2d 34, 41 (8th Cir. 1962); Minnesota Amusement Co. v. Larkin, 299 F. 2d 142, 145 (8th Cir. 1962); Whiting Stoker Co. v. Chicago Stoker Corp., 171 F. 2d 248, 250-251 (7th Cir. 1948), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 915, 69 S.Ct. 1155, 93 L.Ed. 1725 (1949). In determining whether there is an ambiguity, it is proper to examine the disputed language in the context of the entire agreement. United States for Use of Bachman & Keffer Construction Co. v. H. G. Cozad Const…