and in order for that risk to be shifted to the contractor, the clause must unambiguously express that intention.” Id. at 273 (emphasis supplied). As written, American Drilling is authority for the proposition that if a “pay if paid” provision is clear and unambiguous, it will be interpreted as setting a condition precedent to the general contractor’s obligation to pay. Conversely, if such a provision is ambiguous, it will be interpreted as fixing a reasonable time for the general contractor to pay. American Drilling also teaches, at least inferentially, that when a general contractor puts a risk-shifting provision in a subcontract, the burden of clear expression is on the general contractor. See Graue v. Missouri Property Ins. Placement Facility, 847 S.W.2d 779, 785[20] (Mo.banc 1993) (<HOLDING>); DEC Elec., Inc. v. Raphael Const. Corp., 558
holding an ambiguous contract will be construed against the party drafting the same holding that ambiguous agreement between attorney and client must be construed in the clients favor 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 recognizing ambiguous terms of plea agreement are construed against government holding agreed judgments are construed in same manner as contract