Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND RELEASED
NOTICE
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
A party may file with the Supreme Court                                              This opinion is subject to further editing.
a petition to review an adverse decision                                             If  published,  the  official  version  will
by the Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and                                           appear  in  the  bound  volume  of  the
RULE 809.62(1), STATS.                                                               Official Reports.
No.   95-0351-FT
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                   IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
IRISH & LA COUNT, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE LARSEN COMPANY,
Defendant-Respondent.
APPEAL from an order and a judgment of the circuit court for
Brown County:  RICHARD J. DIETZ, Judge.  Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J., LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER  CURIAM.    Irish  &  LaCount,  Inc.,  appeals  an  order  and
judgment  that  dismissed  its breach  of  contract  lawsuit  against  The  Larsen
Company, after a trial to the court.1    The companies entered an "Ensilage
1  This is an expedited appeal under RULE 809.17, STATS.




No.   95-0351-FT
Contract," under which Irish & LaCount agreed to remove waste byproduct
from  Larsen's  sweet corn  processing  plant.    Under  the  contract's payment
clause, Irish & LaCount would receive  $4 per ton of waste removed, with
tonnage  measured  at  80%  of  the  incoming  green  tonnage,  and  the  total
projected payment was set at $64,947.  Irish & LaCount argues that the projected
payment clause set a base revenue level, unconditionally guaranteeing it a
minimum of $64,947 during the one year term of the contract.   The trial court
ruled  that  the                                                                        $64,947  clause  was  a  nonenforceable  projection,  not  an
unconditional promise.   We agree with the trial court's analysis and therefore
affirm the order and judgment.
The trial court correctly held the contract unambiguous.  Contracts
are unambiguous if they permit only one construction.  Meyer v. City of Amery,
185 Wis.2d 537, 543, 518 N.W.2d 296, 298 (Ct. App. 1994).   The ensilage contract
set the "projected payment" at  $64,947 for the one year period.    "Projected"
means  "planned,"  "figured,"  or  "estimated."    Merriam-Webster's  Collegiate
Dictionary  932  (10th  ed.  1994).    It  does not  mean  "guarantee."    Merriam-
Webster's  Collegiate  Dictionary  516  (10th  ed.  1994).    This  clause  also  lay
adjacent to another making the payments due in three installments, the last
installment "to reflect the difference" in the projected amount.   Viewed in this
context, the "projected payment" clause did nothing more than provide a means
for calculating the amounts of the first and second installment payments.   It
established a standard from which the parties expected actual performance to
vary over the contract term, with Larsen to make an appropriate adjustment for
any  variance  in  the  final  payment.    In  sum,  we  see  no  indication  in  the
"projected  payment"  clause  that  the  parties  intended  to  bind  Larsen  to  a
minimum annual payment or guarantee Irish & LaCount minimum annual
revenues.
By the Court.—Order and judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.  See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS.
-2-

Download 8604.pdf

Wisconsin Law