Claim of Krauthamer v. Frank M. Katz, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining court must examine the entire contract, in order to “safeguard against adopting an interpretation that would render any individual provision superfluous”
• “Evidence outside the four corners of the document as to what was really intended but unstated or misstated is generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing.”
• “form merger provision” “plainly manifests” parties’ intention that written terms expressed the full and final agreement
• “Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts.”
• “Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts.”
• “[Wjhen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).