Carolina Ceramics, Inc. v. Carolina Pipeline Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that parol evidence is admissible to prove the meaning of an ambiguous, written contract
• stating that a contract is ambiguous if it is “capable of being understood in more senses than one”
• reversing determination of trial judge in a bench trial that contract term was unambiguous and remanding for new trial to allow the parties an opportunity to offer evidence demonstrating their intent
• “[A]n ambiguous contract is one capable of being understood in more senses than one, an agreement obscure in meaning, through indefiniteness of expression, or having a double meaning.”
• contract is ambiguous if obscure in meaning or has double meaning

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).