Cited by

Right of First Refusal “[T]he proper interpretation of a contract, such as a deed, is a question of law for this court.” Baker v. McCarthy, 122 N.H. 171, 174-75 (1982); see Petition of Rattee, 145 N.H. 341, 345 (2000).

The proper interpretation of a contract, such as a deed, is a question of law for this court.

This is a question of law that we review de novo.

The proper interpretation of this agreement, like other contracts, is a question of law for this court.

The construction of deeds is an issue of law for this court.

The ultimate interpretation of a contract rests with this court as a matter of law, see Baker v. McCarthy, 122 N.H. 171, 174-75, 443 A.2d 138, 140 (1982).

Baker v. McCarthy, 122 N.H. 171, 175, 443 A.2d 138, 140 (1982); cf. Keshishian v. CMC Radiologists, 142 N.H. 168, 177, 698 A.2d 1228, 1234 (1997).

See, e.g., Smith v. Wedgewood Builders Corp., 134 N.H. 125, 131, 590 A.2d 186, 189 (1991); Baker v. McCarthy, 122 N.H. 171, 176-77, 443 A.2d 138, 141-42 (1982).

The first step in thus establishing breach of duty, to demonstrate the significance of Cole’s restriction, presented a matter to be resolved by the court, under the rule that interpretation of the terms of a deed is an issue of law.

Thus, the college requests this court to address, as the final interpreter of contracts, the arbitrators’ finding that the college could only reverse a unanimous recommendation of the FEAC “on extremely compelling evidence that either was not available to or considered by the F.E.A.C.” Because the interpretation of a contract is a question of law for this court, Baker v. McCarthy, 122 N.H. 171, 174-75, 443 A.2d 138, 140 (1982), we will address this issue and apply the common meanings to the word

The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for this court to decide.

We have held that we will construe a lease as a contract, Turcotte v. Griffin, 120 N.H. 292, 294, 415 A.2d 668, 669 (1980), and that the meaning of a contract is ultimately a matter of law for this court to decide, Baker v. McCarthy, 122 N.H. 171, 174-75, 443 A.2d 138, 140 (1982).

We note at the outset that, as a general rule, the proper interpretation of a contract is ultimately a question of law for this court, and we will determine the meaning of the contract based on the meaning that would be attached to it by reasonable persons.

“The construction of a written contract is a question of law for this court....” Logic Assoc’s, Inc. v. Time Share Corp., 124 N.H. *197 565, 571, 474 A.2d 1006, 1010 (1984); Baker v. McCarthy, 122 N.H. 171, 174-75, 443 A.2d 138, 140 (1982).

When contracting parties have not otherwise defined a term, common usage controls.

The final interpretation of a contract is ultimately a question of law for this court.

The construction of a written contract is a question of law for this court except when the meaning of the language depends upon disputed extrinsic evidence.

The meaning of the language is plain, and the common meaning of the language governs.

Baker v. McCarthy, 122 N.H. 171, 175, 443 A.2d 138, 140 (1982); Austin v. Ellis, 119 N.H. 741, 742, 408 A.2d 784, 784 (1979).

While the interpretation of a contract is generally a question of law for the court, Baker v. McCarthy; 122 N.H. 171, 174-75, 443 A.2d 138, 140 (1982), when there is a disputed question of fact as to the terms of a contract, it is to be resolved by the trier of fact.