Maroney v. Universal Leasing Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that contracts may impose obligations on affiliates of the contracting parties in certain contexts
• explaining that a general provision of a contract “must [] be interpreted in light of . . . a more narrowly drafted provision”
• stating that courts “interpret contracts as a whole [by giving] each provision and term effect, so as not to render any part of the contract mere surplusage”
• observing that Delaware courts interpret contracts “so as not to render any part of the contract mere surplusage, and will not read a contract to render a provision or term meaningless or illusory” (citation modified)
• reading two provisions “in harmony” rather than allowing a narrower provision to “qualif[y]” a broader one
• explaining Delaware courts “interpret contracts ‘as a whole’” (quoting Osborn ex rel. Osborn v. Kemp, 991 A.2d 1153, 1159 (Del. 2010))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).