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

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).