28-3-303. Writing generally to determine intention. When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone if possible, subject, however, to the other provisions of this chapter.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 28-3-303 (2026)
Writing Generally To Determine Intention
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 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 3. Intention of the Parties
Writing Generally To Determine Intention
History: En. Sec. 2204, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5028, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7530, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 1639; Field Civ. C. Sec. 804; re-en. Sec. 7530, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 13-705.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Richards v. JTL Grp., Inc., 2009 MT 173, 212 P.3d 264.
Richards v. JTL Grp., Inc., 2009 MT 173, 212 P.3d 264. “" Section 28-3-303, MCA. "The whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.”
Mary J. Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States, Cooperatives, Inc., 2007 MT 159, 164 P.3d 851. “Section 28-3-303, MCA (“When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone if possible, subject, however, to the other provisions of this chapter.”). In addition, evidence of the circumstances under which the contract…”
Mattson v. Montana Power Co., 2009 MT 286, 215 P.3d 675. “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity.”
Carbon Cnty. v. Union Reserve Coal Co., 898 P.2d 680 (Mont. 1995). “” Section 28-3-303, MCA. In Hoge , the reservation of the right to drill for oil and gas is clear.”
Krajacich v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2012 MT 82, 276 P.3d 922. “Corporate Air , ¶ 30 (citing § 28-3-303, MCA); State ex rel. Mont. Dept.”
Wicklund v. Sundheim, 2016 MT 62, 367 P.3d 403. “” Section 28-3-301, MCA, provides that “[a] contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.”
State ex rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2009 MT 261, 217 P.3d 475. “" Section 28-3-303, MCA. "The whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.”
Creveling v. Ingold, 2006 MT 57, 132 P.3d 531. “Where a contract, and by extension a restrictive covenant, has been reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be *534 ascertained, if possible, from the writing alone.”
Corp. Air v. Edwards Jet Ctr., 2008 MT 283, 190 P.3d 1111. ““The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity.”
Stowers v. Cmty. Med. Ctr., Inc., 2007 MT 309, 172 P.3d 1252. “It is the manifestation of Stowers' intent that controls. Wyman, 208 Mont. at 64 , 676 P.2d at 185 .”
Wurl v. Polson Sch. Dist. No. 23, 2006 MT 8, 127 P.3d 436. “Section 28-3-303, MCA; State ex rel. Montana DOT v.”
Nw. Nat'l Bank v. Weaver-Maxwell, Inc., 729 P.2d 1258 (Mont. 1986). “Section 28-3-303, MCA. The majority opinion reverses court's Instruction *1266 No.”
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.