Seabury Construction Corporation v. Jeffrey Chain Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “Agreements should not be interpreted in a way that renders any of the provisions superfluous or meaningless”
• applying New York law and explaining that “where two seemingly conflicting contract provisions reasonably can be reconciled, a court is required to do so and to give both effect”
• “Where the contract is unambiguous, courts must effectuate its plain language.” (citing Slamow v. Del Col, 594 N.E.2d 918, 919 (N.Y. 1992)
• “[W]here two seemingly conflicting contract provisions reasonably can be reconciled, a court is required to do so and to give both effect.”
• “Where the contract is unambiguous, courts must effectuate its plain language.”
• “Where the contract is unambiguous, courts must effectuate its 12 plain language.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).