Cafoncelli v. PSP

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting arguments based on extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent that was contrary to the plain and unambiguous meaning of a contract
• it is axiomatic that when construing an unambiguous document courts should not rewrite its provisions
• “[W]ritten contracts that are complete and free from ambiguity will be found to express the intention of the parties and will be enforced according to their plain language.”
• “It is axiomatic that in construing a document courts should not rewrite the provisions of an unambiguous document, but must enforce an unambiguous contract in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms.”
• “It is axiomatic that in construing a document courts should not rewrite the provisions of an unambiguous document, but must enforce an unambiguous contract in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms.”
• “Extraneous evidence is only admissible to prove intent where there is an ambiguity in the terms of the contract. Absent such ambiguity, we will not look beyond the four corners of the agreement in order to determine the meaning intended by the parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).