Thomas B. Healy, Jr. v. Rich Products Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting district court’s conclusion that where forfeiture provisions permissible no vesting of rights could occur, and looking to general principles of contract interpretation to determine meaning of “vesting”
• “A district court's findings with respect to the expression of the contracting parties’ intent will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.”
• party must overcome a “heavy presumption” that agreement “manifests the true intention of the parties” (alteration omitted) (quoting George Backer Mgmt. Corp. v. Acme Quilting Co., 46 N.Y.2d 211, 219 (1978))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).