Brian Properties, Inc. v. Burley

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an agreement that violated the requirements of the licensing act by omitting a definite expiration date was void
• holding that an agreement that violated the requirements of the licensing act by omitting a definite expiration date was void
• noting both that “[t]he terms and provisions of [a contract] may not be construed in a manner that is contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the language used” and “[w]hen a contract is drawn, it is construed against the drafter”
• noting both that “[t]he terms and provisions of [a contract] may not be construed in a manner that is contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the language used” and “[w]hen a contract is drawn, it is construed against the drafter”
• noting both that “[t]he terms and provisions of [a contract] may not be construed in a manner that is contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the language used,” and “[w]hen a contract is drawn, it is construed against the drafter”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).