were the sole item of overhead and profit. That the parties chose to articulate the sole item of overhead and profit points toward the conclusion that “[plaintiffs’] cost,” as used in this contract, does not include other items of overhead and profit. With that in mind, we consider the evidence in the record of the underlying circumstances. Defendant points to the parties’ past dealings, prior drafts of the agreement, and a statement that he purportedly made to plaintiffs before the parties signed their contract as the circumstances underlying the formation of the contract. We begin with the evidence of the parties’ prior dealings. Evidence of a prior course of dealing is evidence of the circumstances underlying a contract. See Stanfield v. Arnwine, 102 Or 289, 299, 202 P 559 (1921) (<HOLDING>). Defendant argues that the parties’ prior
holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim holding that the trial court erred in allowing an equitable reduction in the amount required to redeem the subject property holding that trial court erred in allowing police officer to testify to contents of telephone records that were not introduced into evidence