Dixie Broadcasting, Inc. v. Radio WBHP, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Dixie Broadcasting, Inc. v. Radio WBHP, Inc.

584 So. 2d 507, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 661, 1991 WL 137262

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided July 5, 1991·No. 89-1340·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Radio WBHP, Inc. (“WBHP”), sued Dixie Broadcasting, Inc. (“Dixie”), and its president, Donald G. Martin, seeking an injunction against any transfer of Dixie’s assets to any entity other than WBHP and seeking specific performance of a purchase and sale agreement entered into by WBHP and Dixie, or, in the alternative, $1,000,000 in damages. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of WBHP, granting injunctive relief and ordering specific performance of the purchase and sale agreement.

Dixie appealed, arguing that the summary judgment was improper, because, it says, certain provisions of the purchase and sale agreement were ambiguous and parol evidence should have been admitted to determine the true meaning of the contract. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur. ADAMS and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Radio WBHP, Inc. (“WBHP”), sued Dixie Broadcasting, Inc. (“Dixie”), and its president, Donald G. Martin, seeking an injunction against any transfer of Dixie’s assets to any entity other than WBHP and seeking specific performance of a purchase and sale agreement entered into by WBHP and Dixie, or, in the alternative, $1,000,000 in damages. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of WBHP, granting injunctive relief and ordering specific performance of the purchase and sale agreement.

Dixie appealed, arguing that the summary judgment was improper, because, it says, certain provisions of the purchase and sale agreement were ambiguous and parol evidence should have been admitted to determine the true meaning of the contract. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur. ADAMS and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent.

Dixie Broadcasting, Inc. v. Radio WBHP, Inc., 584 So. 2d 507, 1991 Ala. LEXIS 661, 1991 WL 137262 (Ala. 1991).

Pincite

584 So. 2d 507 (Dixie Broadcasting, Inc. v. Radio WBHP, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.