Cited by

Curtis v. Altria Grp., Inc., (noting “where there is ambiguity and construction depends upon extrinsic evidence and a writing, there is a question of fact for the jury”).

“It is a well-settled principle that issues not presented at trial cannot be raised on appeal.” n.2 (Minn. 1979) (citations omitted); (this court may consider only issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the district court; a party may not obtain review by raising the same general issue under a different theory).

4 –67 (Minn. 1979) (explaining that the rule of strict construction against the drafter “does not .

n.2 (Minn. 1979) (explaining that appellate courts correct errors rather than find facts).

“[T]he existence and terms of a contract are questions for the fact finder,” Morrisette v. Harrison Int ’l. Co., but “[t]he construction and effect of a contract are questions of law subject to de novo review by this court.” Logan v. Norwest Bank Minn ., 19 (Minn. App. 1999) ().

See Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House , n.2 (Minn. 1979) (“The purpose of appellate review is to determine whether the trial court made an error and not to try the case de novo.

Servs., Inc. , (holding that the rule that ambiguous terms of a contract are construed against the drafter should not be applied until after the fact -finder has attempted to determine the parties’ intent by examining extrinsic evidence); -67 (Minn. 1979) (stating that the general rule that ambiguous terms of a contract are construed against the drafter does not “ineluctably lead to the conclusion that the drafter is to lose”).

See Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House , d 63, 68 n.2 (Minn. 1979).

(explaining that this court exceeds its scope of review if it “usu rp[s] the role of the [district] court by reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts”); n.2 (Minn. 1979) (noting that an appellate court’s responsibility is to correct e rrors, not to retry the case).

In an unambiguous contract, we construe the language according to its “plain and ordinary meaning.” (citations omitted).

Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House , n.2 (Minn. 1979).

Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House , n.2 (Minn. 1979).

Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House , , 66 (Minn. 1979) ; Noreen v. Park Const. Co. , 255 Minn. 187 , , 36 (1959).

Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House , n. 2 (Minn. 1979).

(holding, in the context of contracts, that the rule requiring ambiguous terms to be construed against the drafter does not “ineluctably lead to the conclusion that the drafter is to lose”).

In Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, the supreme court stated, “Where there are ambiguous *132 terms or the intent is doubtful, it is axiomatic that the contract will be construed against the drafter.”

“An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below.” –83 (Minn. 1988); n.2 (Minn. 1979) (striking a document not included in district court record).

Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.

(stating that the meaning of a written contract presents a question of law unless there is ambiguity and construction depends on extrinsic evidence, in which case it becomes a question of fact).

Second, even if the retainer agreement were ambiguous regarding its application to this situation, “it is axiomatic that the contract will be construed against the drafter.”

(“Where there are ambiguous terms or the intent is doubtful, it is axiomatic that the contract will be construed against the drafter.”).

“[L]anguage found in a contract is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.”

(); (“If it is reasonably debatable whether a dispute is subject to arbitration, the district court should forward the dispute to arbitration.” (quotation omitted)).

“The construction and effect of a contract are questions of law for the court, but where there is ambiguity and construction depends upon extrinsic evidence and a writing, there is a question of fact for the jury.”