{ "id": 1875394, "name": "BLACK AND BLACK OIL COMPANY v. SMITH DRILLING COMPANY, INC.", "name_abbreviation": "Black & Black Oil Co. v. Smith Drilling Co.", "decision_date": "1986-07-14", "docket_number": "86-63", "first_page": "487", "last_page": "491", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "289 Ark. 487" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "712 S.W.2d 901" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "280 Ark. 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1744823 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/280/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 Ark. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1879931 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/283/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 Ark. 876", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1712397 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/269/0876-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 Ark. 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1612035 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/218/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 Ark. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723404 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/256/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 S.W.2d 1007", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1929, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "180 Ark. 729", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1393521 ], "year": 1929, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/180/0729-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 380, "char_count": 5303, "ocr_confidence": 0.895, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.69862142773624e-08, "percentile": 0.453447478984296 }, "sha256": "c1db4d5bb563f9a4cfbc3b2f24889a3dc3620ca32b99bee449a62cec2cc35723", "simhash": "1:0e26c50fbc4e9454", "word_count": 857 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:34.211418+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Holt, C.J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "BLACK AND BLACK OIL COMPANY v. SMITH DRILLING COMPANY, INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nThe appellant, Black and Black Oil Company, (Black and Black), entered a contract with the appellee, Guy R. Smith Drilling Company, Inc., (Smith), by which Black and Black hired Smith to drill a well. After the drilling had begun, the drilling ceased because circulation of the drilling mud, which is necessary to the drilling operation, was lost. Another company, Dia-Log, was called to the scene to restore the lost circulation. Dia-Log sued Black and Black as well as Smith to collect the amount it had billed for the service it rendered. Black and Black claimed Smith was responsible to pay Dia-Log, and Smith claimed it was Black and Black\u2019s responsibility. The trial court found the contract between Black and Black and Smith to have been ambiguous with respect to responsibility for Dia-Log\u2019s bill and thus permitted parol evidence to ascertain the parties\u2019 intent. Sitting without a jury, the court found the contract required that the operator, Black and Black, assume responsibility for Dia-Log\u2019s bill. Black and Black contends the trial court erroneously reformed or modified the contract and that it was error to interpret the contract as requiring Black and Black to pay Dia-Log. We affirm.\nThe contract consisted of a bid letter which looked like this:\nGUY R. SMITH DRILLING CO., INC.\nP. O. Box 396\nSTEPHENS, ARKANSAS 71764\nApril 12, 1984\nBlack & Black Operators\nMagnolia, Arkansas 71753\nGentlemen:\nEnclosed please find our turnkey bid on your 4900 foot Smackover well in Section 14, Township 14 South, Range 19 West of Ouachita County, Arkansas:\n* Furnish road, location and pits.\n* Furnish water.\n*Drill 7 %\" hole to approximately 4900 feet.\n*Furnish, set and cement 300 feet of 8 W surface casing.\n* Furnish all mud and chemicals.\n*Furnish Geolograph and catch samples as required. *Furnish and run Gearhart DIL Log.\n* Furnish 24 hours rig time to run production casing or plug and abandon.\nTurnkey for the above....................... $60,000.00\nRig time for any other services or the encounter of loss circulation will be at the rate of $175.00 per hour.\nOptional - Furnish Minimum Density CDL-CNL-GR Log.................................... $3,858.00\nOptional - Furnish 12 Side Wall Cores......... $2,040.00\nOptional - Cut One 50 Foot Diamond Core.....$6,500.00\nOptional - Attempt One Single Packer Drill Stem\nTest ................................... $6,500.00\nSincerely,\nGuy R. Smith Drilling Company, Inc.\nRGS:dt\nApproved and Accepted on this _day of_ 1984 By:\nThe appellant concedes it was proper for the trial court to take parol evidence with respect to the parties\u2019 intent as expressed in the contract in view of the contract\u2019s ambiguity. We agree. In a similar case, Murdock v. Reynolds, 180 Ark. 729, 22 S.W.2d 1007 (1929), we reversed the refusal of the trial court to allow parol evidence.\nThe ambiguity here is created by the use of the term \u201cturnkey\u201d to apply to everything \u201cabove,\u201d which includes drilling to 4900 feet, and then using the term \u201crig time\u201d to refer to the manner in which the operator, Black and Black, would be billed in the event of loss of circulation. The question becomes whether \u201cturnkey\u201d meant the driller, Smith, would supply whatever was necessary to reach 4900 feet and if so whether the reference to \u201crig time\u201d for \u201cany other services\u201d created an exception to the \u201cturnkey\u201d portion of the agreement.\nThe appellant\u2019s argument is that the trial court accepted the parol evidence for the purpose of modifying the contract or adding terms to it rather than interpreting it. While the trial court misspoke at one point, saying he would permit parol evidence to \u201cmodify\u201d the contract, his letter order on which the judgment was based makes it clear he was following our decision in Murdock v. Reynolds, supra, and allowing \u201cparol testimony to explain the customary, local meaning of the word [rig time].\u201d The court\u2019s letter order further recited that \u201c[e]ach expert testified unequivocally, that upon consideration of the contract, and the term \u2018rig time,\u2019 that the operator was responsible for third party services.\u201d\nWe agree with the appellee\u2019s argument that in accepting parol evidence to determine the meaning of the contract the trial court was making a determination of fact. C & A Construction Co. v. Benning Construction Co., 256 Ark. 621, 509 S.W.2d 302 (1974); Fort Smith Appliance & Service Co. v. Smith, 218 Ark. 411, 236 S.W.2d 583 (1951); Don Gilstrap Builders, Inc. v. Jackson, 269 Ark. 876, 601 S.W.2d 270 (Ark. App. 1980). We will not reverse a factual determination made by the court sitting without a jury unless we can say it was clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(a); McDermott v. Strauss, 283 Ark. 444, 678 S.W.2d 334 (1984); Wasp Oil, Inc. v. Arkansas Oil and Gas, Inc., 280 Ark. 420, 658 S.W.2d 397 (1983). While the appellant presented an expert who contradicted, to an extent, the ones presented by the appellee, we cannot say the court\u2019s determination was clearly erroneous.\nAffirmed.\nHolt, C.J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "David Newbern, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Steve R. Crane, for appellant.", "Bramblett & Pratt, by: Eugene D. Bramblett, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BLACK AND BLACK OIL COMPANY v. SMITH DRILLING COMPANY, INC.\n86-63\n712 S.W.2d 901\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 14, 1986\nSteve R. Crane, for appellant.\nBramblett & Pratt, by: Eugene D. Bramblett, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0487-01", "first_page_order": 519, "last_page_order": 523 }