Mason v. Telefunken Semiconductors America, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “the structure of the Agreement makes it nose-on-the-face plain that the contracting parties never intended to use those distinct terms synonymously”
• summary judgment proper when LAPOUR v. CENTRAL STATE, et al. Decision of the Court extrinsic evidence makes a contract’s meaning unequivocal
• “Tf the extrinsic evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable person could decide the contrary, the meaning of the language becomes evident and the erstwhile ambiguity will not preclude summary judgment.”
• “But if the extrinsic evidence bearing on the meaning of the relevant language is ‘contested or contradictory,’ summary judgment will not lie.” (quoting Allen v. Adage, Inc., 967 F.2d 695, 703 n. 3 (1st Cir;1992))
• “The severance provisions for termination without cause are generous . . . and the contracting parties may well have wanted to ensure that either side could revisit those provisions periodically. The non-renewal clause offered the parties just such a vehicle.”
• “Where the same word or phrase might have been used . . . in different portions of a [contract] but a different word or phrase having different meaning is used instead, the construction employing that different meaning is to be favored.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).