Prochazka v. Bee-Three Development, LLC
2015 Ark. App. 384, 466 S.W.3d 448 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract provision is ambiguous if it is open to at least two reasonable interpretations, which is determined by viewing the contract as a whole rather than isolating particular words or phrases. When such an ambiguity exists and cannot be resolved by the contract's text alone, the parties' intent becomes a question of fact to be decided by a trier of fact.
Facts:
- Bee-Three Development, LLC (Bee-Three) entered into a written agreement to purchase a commercial lot from Robert and Donna Prochazka.
- The agreement included an 'Inspection Period' during which Bee-Three could conduct tests and determine the property's desirability for its intended use.
- A clause within the 'Inspection of Property' article allowed Bee-Three to terminate if, in its 'sole and absolute discretion,' it found the property unsuitable for its intended use.
- Bee-Three’s confidential intended use was to develop the property and lease it to a specific client.
- During the inspection period, Bee-Three's potential client decided to renew its existing lease at a different location for reasons unrelated to the Prochazkas' property.
- Because its client backed out, Bee-Three determined the Prochazkas' property was no longer suitable for its intended use.
- Bee-Three notified the Prochazkas that it was terminating the agreement during the inspection period and requested the return of its $7,000 earnest money.
Procedural Posture:
- Bee-Three Development, LLC sued Robert and Donna Prochazka in Pope County Circuit Court (a state trial court of first instance) to recover its $7,000 earnest money.
- The Prochazkas filed a counterclaim against Bee-Three for breach of contract, seeking to retain the earnest money as damages.
- Bee-Three moved for summary judgment, arguing the contract's termination clause was unambiguous.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Bee-Three, ruling the contract gave it an absolute right to terminate, and dismissed the Prochazkas' counterclaim.
- The Prochazkas, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contract provision that grants a buyer the right to terminate an agreement in its 'sole and absolute discretion' if the property is 'not suitable for Buyer's intended use' ambiguous when that provision is located within the contract's section on property inspection?
Opinions:
Majority - Brandon J. Harrison, Judge
Yes. A material ambiguity exists because the termination clause is open to more than one reasonable interpretation. While the phrase 'sole and absolute discretion' appears absolute in isolation, its placement within Article 4, titled 'Inspection of Property,' suggests it may be linked to findings from the property inspection itself (e.g., concerning soil, permits, or utilities). An alternative reasonable interpretation is that the right to terminate is untethered and absolute. Because the contract as a whole creates this uncertainty and does not define 'intended use,' extrinsic evidence is necessary to determine the parties' intent, which is a question of fact for a jury. Therefore, summary judgment was improper.
Dissenting - Rita W. Gruber, Judge
No. The contract language is not ambiguous and should be enforced as written. The phrases 'sole and absolute discretion' and 'determine generally the desirability and utility of the Property' grant the buyer a clear and unrestricted right to terminate based on its own determination of suitability for its intended use, which it was not required to disclose. Linking the termination right exclusively to physical property inspections improperly enlarges the contract's terms. The trial court's finding that the right was absolute was correct, and summary judgment should be affirmed.
Concurring - Bart F. Virden, Judge
No. The judge agrees with the dissent that the contract language regarding termination is not ambiguous. However, the judge concurs with the majority's result to remand for trial because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to what the buyer's 'intended use' actually was and whether the property was truly unsuitable for that specific use, making summary judgment inappropriate on that factual basis.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the critical role of context in contract interpretation, establishing that even seemingly absolute language can be rendered ambiguous by its placement within a contract. The ruling serves as a precedent for challenging termination-for-convenience or discretionary termination clauses that are not standalone provisions but are tied to other, more specific sections like an inspection period. It cautions practitioners against a narrow, literal reading of isolated clauses, reaffirming the holistic 'four-corners' approach to determining contractual intent. This will likely lead to more litigation over the scope of discretionary termination rights where the reason for termination is unrelated to the subject matter of the article in which the clause appears.
Unlock the full brief for Prochazka v. Bee-Three Development, LLC