Daines v. Vincent

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a finding of ambiguity is justified only if the language of the contract reasonably supports the competing interpretations
• stating “there can be no ambiguity where evidence is offered in an attempt to obscure otherwise plain contractual terms”
• “[T]here can be no ambiguity where evidence is offered in an attempt to obscure otherwise plain contractual terms.”
• “To prevail on a claim of fraudulent inducement, [the plaintiff] must present clear and convincing evidence____”
• fraudulent inducement requires a plaintiff to show that he “act[ed] reasonably and in ignorance of [a representation’s] falsity” (quotation omitted)
• a contractual provision is ambiguous “if it is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation because of uncertain meanings of terms, missing terms, or other facial deficiencies” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).