28-3-201. Interpretation giving effect to contract favored. A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 28-3-201 (2026)
Interpretation Giving Effect To Contract Favored
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 3. INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
Part 2. General Rules of Interpretation
Interpretation Giving Effect To Contract Favored
History: En. Sec. 2208, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5032, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7534, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 1643; Field Civ. C. Sec. 808; re-en. Sec. 7534, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 13-709.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2009 MT 261 (Mont. 2009).
State Ex Rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2009 MT 261 (Mont. 2009). “"The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity.”
Ehly v. Cady, 687 P.2d 687 (Mont. 1984). “Section 28-3-201, MCA. And the language is to govern the interpretation if it is clear and does not involve an absurdity.”
Hetherington v. Ford Motor Co., 849 P.2d 1039 (Mont. 1993). “Section 28-3-201, MCA, provides: A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being *1043 carried into effect if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.”
Beehive Homes v. Harding, 2006 MT 297 (Mont. 2006). “]” Harding also advances § 28-3-201, MCA, which states “[a] contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.”
Eschenbacher v. Anderson, 2001 MT 206 (Mont. 2001). “See § 28-3-201, MCA. Courts have no authority to insert or delete provisions of a contract where the contract’s provisions are unambiguous.”
Marriage of Bliss & Evans, 2016 MT 51 (Mont. 2016). “Pursuant to § 28-3-201, MCA, “[a] contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.”
Young v. Hammer, 2021 MT 180 (Mont. 2021). ““A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.”
Ballou v. Walker, 2017 MT 197 (Mont. 2017). “Section 28-3-201, MCA. The language of a contract governs its interpretation when the language is clear, explicit, and without absurdity.”
Peeler v. Rocky Mountain Log Homes Can., Inc., 431 P.3d 911 (Mont. 2018). “Section 1-4-107, MCA. However, we must also construe particular provisions in the context of the agreement as a whole, giving consistent meaning and effect to all provisions as possible.”
Deschamps v. Deschamps, 2009 MT 431 (Mont. 2009). “Ronald contends that the Agreement clearly expressed the intent of the parties, that Ronald would receive all property upon dissolution of the marriage, regardless of Kim’s contributions.”
Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 2000 MT 213 (Mont. 2000). “2d 1195, 1199 (citations omitted); § 28-3-201, MCA. Such intent, in turn, “must be gathered from the outward objective manifestations of the parties and not by the subjective undisclosed *65 intent of one of the parties.”
Hennen v. Omega Enter., Inc., 872 P.2d 797 (Mont. 1994). “Section 28-3-201, MCA; First Security Bank of Anaconda v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.