Cited by

¶ 17 (App. 2018) (“[C]ourts must avoid an interpretation of a contract that leads to an absurd result.”).

¶ 17 (App. 2018) (“[C]ourts must avoid an interpretation of a contract that leads to an absurd result.”).

without any corresponding benefit to [use] them.” ¶ 17 (App. 2018) (“[C]ourts must avoid an interpretation of a contract that leads to an absurd result.”).

The interpretation of the contract is a matter of law, ¶ 16 (App. 2018), and regardless of the correctness of the arbitrator’s award, our review of his award under Section 12-3023(A)(4) is limited to whether the arbitrator resolved any issue not submitted to him.

at 152; ¶ 17 (App. 2018); ELM Ret.

¶ 17 (App. 2018) (“[C]ourts must avoid an interpretation of a contract that leads to an absurd result.”); see also Chandler Med.

“The purpose of contract interpretation is to determine the parties’ intent and enforce that intent.” ¶ 17 (App. 2018) (citing Grosvenor Holdings, L.C.

Deciding whether conduct is “sufficient to constitute part performance is a question of law.” 4 ¶ 9 (App. 2018) (citing William Henry Brophy Coll., 127 Ariz. at 194).

¶14 We have recognized that “[w]hether acts are sufficient to constitute part performance is a question of law, which we review de novo.” ¶ 9 (App. 2018) (citations omitted).