Seiden Associates, Inc. v. Anc Holdings, Inc., American National Can Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that when a contract is ambiguous “extrinsic evidence may properly be considered in the search for the contracting parties’ intent.”
• explaining that where contractual language is susceptible to differing reasonable interpretations and “where there is relevant extrinsic evidence of the parties’ actual intent, the meaning of the words become an issue of fact” (citations omitted)
• explaining ambiguity does not exist “where one party’s view ‘strain[s] the contract language beyond its reasonable and ordinary meaning’” (quoting Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Turner Constr. Co., 2 N.Y.2d 456, 459 (1957))
• “If the language unambiguously conveys the parties’ intent, extrinsic evidence may not properly be received.... ”
• \The language of a contract is not made ambiguous simply because the parties urge different interpretations.\
• Contractual ambiguity does not exist where one party’s view “strains the contract language beyond its reasonable and ordinary meaning.” (internal quotation and alterations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).