contract consistently with their intent. OSEA v. Ranter School Dist. No. 13, 311 Or 188, 808 P2d 83 (1991). An ambiguity exists in a contract if the contract is capable of more than one sensible and reasonable interpretation. Deerfield Commodities v. Nerco, Inc., 72 Or App 305, 317,696 P2d 1096, rev den 299 Or 314 (1985). Inherent in the purpose of a release agreement is a promise to abandon a claim or right that is within the contemplation of the parties. Lindgren v. Berg, 307 Or 659, 665, 772 P2d 1336 (1989). Before a release is valid, there must be both the knowledge of the existence of the claim and an intention to relinquish it, in the absence of a specific promise to release liability for unanticipated claims. See Hansen v. Oregon Humane Soc., 142 Or 104, 115, 18 P2d 1036 (1933) (<HOLDING>). Here, the issue is whether there exists an
holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence holding that to be competent under ford a prisoner must have a rational understanding of what it means to be executed holding that what is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech holding question of fact existed regarding fraud where release signed by plaintiff not understanding english language and defendant failed to cause release to be explained in plaintiffs language holding that to be valid and binding a release must be executed with full knowledge of the import of what is being signed and with the intent to discharge from liability