Cooperative Furniture Co. v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• noting adoption of context rule because parties’ intent is not always clear from contract terms, but refusing to permit extrinsic evidence contradicting terms of contract to raise fact question
• \`[u]nilateral or subjective purposes and intentions about the meanings of what is written do not constitute evidence of the parties' intentions'.\
• court's intention in adopting the \context rule\ was not \to allow such evidence to be employed to emasculate the written expression of\ the meaning of the contract's terms
• court’s intention in adopting the “context rule” was not “to allow such evidence to be employed to emasculate the written expression of” the meaning of the contract’s terms
• under the \context rule\ adopted in Berg v. Hudesman, 115 Wash.2d 657, 801 P.2d 222 (1990
• extrinsic evidence may be used to clarify the meaning of words in a contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).