Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Citation
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Parent Document
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1988-07-26
Other Sections in This Document (41)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
- Ridley v. Newsome, 754 S.W.2d 912 (1988)
Full Text
380 charsRespondents’ counterclaim alleges that the appellants had a duty to repair the roof and that they failed in that duty, directly resulting in damage to the respondents. Appellants refute this, claiming they had no duty to repair. The contract itself reveals an ambiguity on this point. The provisions of the contract dealing with repair are set out as follows: 8. Care of Premises.