Statute of Frauds Case Problem.
Carefully explain in your own words (paraphrase and do not copy from the case) the following words and statements from the case: 1. Explain – Wood Care argues the trial court improperly considered parol evidence in its interpretation of the Agreement and the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that Evangel Temple did not breach the Agreement. We affirm. 2. Explain – The Agreement contained a “ten-percent termination clause” that stated: Tenant, however, shall have the option of terminating this lease at any time by giving Landlord written notice of its election to do so and payment to Landlord of a sum of money equal to 10% of the balance of the rental payments then owed under the terms of this lease. The Agreement also contained a “tax-exemption termination clause” that stated: Both parties agree to cooperate with each other to achieve any available property tax exemption. In the event a property tax exemption for the leased premises is denied or suspended, Tenant shall have the option to terminate this lease. If, notwithstanding, the denial of such property tax exemption, Tenant elects to continue the lease, then Tenant shall be responsible for the payment of all property taxes and assessments and shall timely pay such taxes or assessments. 3. Explain – Lack of clarity or a disagreement among the parties does not necessarily create an ambiguity. (Links to an external site.)Rather, whether “a contract is ambiguous is a question of law that must be decided by examining the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances present when the contract was entered.” “If, after the pertinent rules of construction are applied, the contract can be given a definite or certain legal meaning, it is unambiguous and we construe it as a matter of law.” 4. Explain who won, and conclusion https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8784864806968882344&q https://youtu.be/U_DmCd8oRJghttp:// abogado.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/101850418/Wood%20Care.pdf