Cited by

Co., (noting contract construction and related defenses are questions of law).

Co., (trial court has discretion to decide when to admit extrinsic evidence because it is “in the best position to decide how to proceed”).

Co., –59 (1993) (“Because interpretation was needed and because the extrinsic evidence established controversy over 3 SARBU, et al. v. VERTULLO, et al. Decision of the Court what occurred and what inferences to draw from the ev

Co. (1993) for the rule that “in Arizona, a court will attempt to enforce a contract according to the parties’ intent.”

Co., n.9 (1993) (“[A] contract should be 18 IN RE MARRIAGE OF MCCULLOCH Opinion of the Court interpreted, if at all possible, in a way that does not render parts of it superfluous.”).

Co., (citation omitted).

Ins., (reaffirming Arizona courts’ commitment to the Corbin rule of contract interpretation, permitting courts to consider parol evidence to construct contracts in accordance with the parties’ intent).

Co., (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Co., (“[T]he court can admit evidence for interpretation but must stop short of contradiction.”).

Co., -53 (1993), first looking to “the plain meaning of the words” in the contract as a whole, Grosvenor Holdings, L.C.

Co., (citing Burkons v. Ticor Title Ins.

Co., (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Co., (citations omitted).