Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 12/12/1997

Nycal Corp. v. INOCO PLC

Citations

  • 988 F. Supp. 296
  • 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19851
  • 1997 WL 774683

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding that “the only testimonial evidence presented by either party that is properly considered is the testimony . . . concerning objective expressions of the parties’ intent made during the negotiations”
  • rejecting testimony concerning contracts negotiations where witness did not have personal knowledge of the negotiations
  • Lacey and Rowland deposition testimony deemed to be sworn, based on personal knowledge, and set forth facts admissible in evidence
  • “[S]ummary judgment is appropriate in a contract interpretation dispute whenever there is no genuine issue of fact . . . .”
  • testimony reflecting subjective intent or understanding only is not properly considered in construing ambiguous language in an agreement
  • “[W]hen resolving disputes concerning the meaning of ambiguous contract language, unexpressed subjective views have no proper bearing.” (collecting cases)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kaplan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Nycal Corp. v. INOCO PLC

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.