- 12 -
to depreciation for each year, and neither party has suggested a
different interpretation. After considering these provisions and
the agreement as a whole, we reject petitioner's argument that
the provision limiting the number of depreciable cattle should be
read to limit the total number of cattle held by the
partnerships.
Even if we found the agreement ambiguous as to this
provision, petitioner has offered no extrinsic evidence that
supports his position. We find that the agreement limited the
number of cattle subject to depreciation only but did not limit
the number of non-depreciable cattle owned by the partnerships.
Petitioner further argues that the portion of the agreement
that provides that principal payments will begin in the sixth
year of the partnership should be enforced by concluding that
such payments are to be made by the transfer of registered
shorthorn heifers. The language of the agreement is silent as to
the method of payment.
Petitioner's proffered evidence, when considered in light of
general contract principles, does not convince us that his
interpretation is correct. When the Court asked petitioner if he
assumed or intended that the provision meant that payment would
be made by the transfer of registered shorthorn heifers, he
responded "I wouldn't characterize it that way". He testified
that he did not designate, in the provision, the class of cattle
with which payment was to be made because he was focusing on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011