Joyner v. Adams
1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 23, 97 N.C. App. 65, 387 S.E.2d 235 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When parties to a contract attach different meanings to an ambiguous term, the agreement is interpreted according to the meaning of the party who was unaware of the ambiguity, provided the other party knew or had reason to know of the first party's meaning. If neither party knew or had reason to know of the other's meaning, no contract is formed as to that term, and the party seeking to enforce their interpretation cannot prevail.
Facts:
- Plaintiff's predecessor and Brown Investment Company ('Company') executed a 50-year commercial lease in 1972 for an undeveloped office park.
- The lease stipulated that rent on undeveloped portions would be recomputed annually based on a price index.
- Defendant Adams succeeded the financially troubled Company as lessee and negotiated an amendment with Plaintiff.
- The amendment suspended the annual rent recomputation, giving Adams a five-year window, until September 30, 1980, to 'subdivide all of the undeveloped land... whereby all portions are deemed lots and eligible for the execution of a lease.'
- Failure to meet this condition by the deadline would trigger a retroactive rent increase for the entire five-year period.
- By the September 30, 1980 deadline, Adams had filed subdivision plats, graded the land, installed utilities, and built roads on all lots.
- However, Adams had not yet requested a lot lease or commenced construction of a building on the final lot.
- Plaintiff believed the agreement required completed buildings by the deadline to avoid the rent increase, while Adams believed it only required the land to be ready for construction.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Joyner filed suit against Defendant Adams in a North Carolina trial court in 1983 for breach of the lease agreement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant.
- Plaintiff appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which, in an unpublished opinion ('Joyner I'), found the lease language ambiguous and remanded for trial.
- Following a non-jury trial, the trial court entered judgment for Plaintiff.
- Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals ('Joyner II') reversed, finding no 'meeting of the minds' and remanding again.
- The court in 'Joyner II' instructed the trial court to determine if either party knew or had reason to know the other's meaning of the ambiguous term.
- On remand, the trial court found that neither party knew or had reason to know the other's meaning and entered judgment for Defendant.
- Plaintiff now appeals that judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals for a third time.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party seeking to enforce their subjective interpretation of an ambiguous contract term prevail when the other party neither knew nor had reason to know of that interpretation?
Opinions:
Majority - Greene, Judge
No. A party cannot enforce their subjective meaning of an ambiguous contract term against another party who neither knew nor had reason to know of that meaning. The court upheld the trial court's judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant knew or should have known of the plaintiff's unique interpretation of the development requirement. The court found competent evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion, including: 1) the plaintiff's own inconsistent testimony about what she believed the contract required; 2) the plaintiff's failure to directly communicate her interpretation to the defendant during negotiations; 3) evidence that the defendant had explicitly rejected a proposed clause that would have required 'completed buildings'; and 4) the defendant's extensive experience in commercial real estate, which gave him a different, but reasonable, understanding of the terms. A reasonable person in the defendant's position would not have been induced to believe that completing all buildings by the deadline was required.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the objective theory of contract interpretation, specifically addressing situations of latent ambiguity where there is no 'meeting of the minds.' The court applies the principle from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 201, which assigns meaning based on fault. The holding prevents a party from leveraging their uncommunicated, subjective understanding of a term to bind a counterparty who was reasonably unaware of that meaning. This decision reinforces the importance of clear drafting and communication during negotiations, as courts will look to the objective evidence of the parties' interactions—such as rejected proposals—to determine what expectations were reasonably induced.
