Schor v. FMS Financial Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that where a contract’s language is “clear and unambiguous,” the court must “enforce those terms as written”
• explaining where a contract’s language is ambiguous, parties may “introduce proof of extrinsic circumstances bearing on the alleged proper interpretation of the language used”
• “A party that uses unambiguous terms in a contract cannot be relieved from the language simply because it had a secret, unexpressed intent that the language should have an interpretation contrary to the words’ plain meaning.”
• stating courts give contractual terms their plain and ordinary meaning

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).