Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Issue: Under Colorado law, how will a court construe the duration of a contract, in the absence of a certain date?
| Area of Law: | Business Organizations & Contracts |
| Keywords: | Duration of a contract; Absence of a certain date |
| Jurisdiction: | Colorado |
| Cited Cases: | 650 P.2d 1315; 499 P.2d 1285; 607 A.2d 533; 987 F.2d 580; 649 A.2d 1145; 784 P.2d 320; 70 S.E. 296; 959 F. Supp. 748; 447 S.E.2d 199; 608 P.2d 890; 662 N.Y.S.2d 498; 153 P.2d 998; 840 F. Supp. 1433; 83 F.3d 704; 158 Colo. 297; 799 P.2d 371; 914 P.2d 909; 883 P.2d 500; 852 F. Supp. 1486; 554 P.2d 948; 849 F. Supp. 1412; 406 P.2d 333 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 02/01/2001 |
Generally, when examining the meaning and application of a contract, courts review the document as a whole, rather than isolating language or clauses and reviewing them separately. Kuta v. Joint Dist. No. 50(J), 799 P.2d 379, 382 (Colo. 1990). See also Holland v. Board of County Comm’rs, 883 P.2d 500, 505 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994) (“In order to determine the intent of a contract, it must be construed as a whole and effect must be given to every provision, if possible.”); Engineered Data Prods., Inc. v. Nova Office Furniture, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 1412, 1417 (D. Colo. 1994) (“All of the provisions of a contract must be considered together to determine, if possible, the meaning intended by the parties.”); In re First Interstate Bank, 767 P.2d 792, 795 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988) (“Whenever possible, different provisions in a contract should be construed in a manner to harmonize and give effect to all of them.”). With that in mind, a court will generally try to reach a conclusion that makes sense, as the “construction of a contract should be reasonable and not lead to an absurd result.” Engineered Data Prods., 849 F. Supp. at 1417 (citation omitted).
If a contract’s terms are unambiguous, the interpretation of its terms is not a job for a trier of fact, but is a matter of law. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 842 P.2d 208, 211 (Colo. 1992); Holland v. […]