Gardiner, Kamya & Associates, P.C. v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

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 contract modification lacked retroactive effect when it used forward-looking terms like “continue the services” and “extend the performance period,” and when the effective date did not pre-date the signing of the modification
• stating that the court must first look to extrinsic evidence to resolve contract ambiguities before resorting to the rule of contra proferentem
• explaining that the doctrine of contra proferentem “is a rule of last resort” relied on only where the ambiguous term cannot be determined from the text and circumstances
• “[T]he doctrine of contra proferentem is applied only when other approaches to contract interpretation have failed.”
• “[T]he doctrine of contra proferentem is applied only when other approaches to contract interpretation have failed.”
• whether contract language is ambiguous is a question of law which we review without deference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).