2005) (citation omitted). 10 . Josephine B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 174 P.3d 217, 222 (Alaska 2007). 11 . N.W. Cruiseship Ass'n of Alaska, Inc. v. State, Office of Lieutenant Governor, Div. of Elections, 145 P.3d 573, 576 (Alaska 2006) (citing Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979)). 12 . Romero v. Cox, 166 P.3d 4, 8 (Alaska 2007) (citing N. Pac. Processors, Inc., 113 P.3d at 579). 13 . Derr argues that the contract was fully integrated and thai examining extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of the contract was inappropriate. The August 14, 2006 agreement was not integrated making this argument inapplicable. 14 . 666 P.2d 33 (Alaska 1983). 15 . 535 P.2d 1188 (Alaska 1975). 16 . Alaska N. Development, 666 P.2d at 39 (<HOLDING>). 17 . Lewis, 535 P.2d at 1197. 18 . Id. 19 .
holding that if the contract can be given a definite and certain meaning or interpretation the contract is not ambiguous and will be construed by the court as a matter of law holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court