Home Table of Contents

AMI 2422 Contract Interpretation—Written or Typewritten Provisions Control Provisions of Prepri...

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil

Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 2422
Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil
November 2021 Update
Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil
Chapter 24. Contracts
Contract Interpretation
AMI 2422 Contract Interpretation—Written or Typewritten Provisions Control Provisions of Preprinted Forms
If a contract contains handwritten or typewritten provisions that are contradictory to the provisions of a preprinted form, the handwritten or typewritten provisions control.
COMMENT
In Leonard v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 290 Ark. 571, 720 S.W.2d 908 (1986) the court interpreted a promissory note that contained preprinted language stating that the interest rate was a fixed amount and typewritten language providing that the rate was adjustable. In affirming the trial court's finding that the typewritten provision controlled, the court applied the rule that “typewritten provisions prevail over printed ones, only when the two are so contradictory that one must yield to the other ….” In Stacy v. Williams, 38 Ark. App. 192, 834 S.W.2d 156 (1992) the court applied this rule of contract interpretation to find that a typewritten provision created an ambiguity in a contract such that the intent of the parties could not be discerned from the four corners of the document such that the trial court properly considered parol evidence to construe the parties' intent. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203, cmt. f (1981).
End of Document