Pileri Industries shipped goods to Consolidated Industries, Inc., via a common carrier. The goods were lost in transit. Pileri claimed that the sale was a shipment contract, thus putting the risk of loss on Consolidated, while Consolidated claimed the opposite. The bill of lading indicates only that Pileri shipped some items to Consolidated. It does not indicate whether the contract was a “shipping contract” or a

“destination contract.” In other words, it does not state “FOB Farmingdale” (Pileri’s place of business) or “FOB Huntsville” (Consolidated’s place of business). Pileri sued Consolidated, attempting to recover money for the parts shipped. When there is ambiguity, does a court necessarily interpret the contract to be a shipment contract?