The moving party sought summary judgment for repayment of $650,000 advanced under a joint venture agreement for the purchase and resale of motor vehicles.
The responding party argued the agreement was ambiguous and did not expressly guarantee repayment of the capital investment, asserting that contractual interpretation required a trial.
Applying the summary judgment framework and principles of contractual interpretation, the court found the agreement clearly required that the initial capital investment not be used to absorb losses and be returned upon termination of the venture.
Considering both the contractual language and surrounding circumstances, including collateral mortgages granted as security, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
Summary judgment was granted for the return of the $650,000 investment.
