American Dressler Tunnel Kilns, Inc. v. Holt

Citations

• 269 Pa. 293
• 112 A. 43
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 800

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Written contract — Construction—Party’s construction of contract.</p> <p>1. Plaintiff, a corporation, engaged in the business of building kilns, entered into a written contract with defendant whereby the latter was to finance the construction of kilns for those who might apply to plaintiff for that purpose. The applicant for a kiln was to pay defendant the agreed price for a kiln, called the “cash price.” Plaintiff was to do all the work, for which it was to receive from defendant, what the agreement defined as the “contract price,” being 88 per cent of the “cash price.” The “contract price” was to be payable, $1,000 on signing the agreement, 25 per cent of the “cash price,” when certain work was done, a further sum of 25 per cent of the “cash price” when a second portion of the work was finished, a still further sum of 25 per cent of the “cash price,” when a third portion of the work was done, and the “remainder of the contract price” upon completion, of the work. Meld, that plaintiff, as to the percentage items, was entitled to receive from defendant after the initial payment of $1,000, 25 per cent of the “cash price” paid by the applicant to defendant, and not 25 per cent of the “contract price,” which was but 88 per cent of the total cost.</p> <p>2. Only in case of doubt or ambiguity in a written contract can the parties’ own construction be resorted to.</p>