United Rentals, Inc. v. RAM Holdings, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the forthright negotiator doctrine may only be applied where “the extrinsic evidence does not lead to a single, commonly held understanding of a contract’s meaning”
• explaining that a party cannot “manufacture an ambiguity” permitting it to introduce extrinsic evidence where the contract “facially has only one reasonable meaning”
• explaining that because the “Merger Agreement simultaneously purports to provide and preclude the remedy of specific performance” those “conflicting provisions of th[at] contract render it decidedly ambiguous”
• explaining that “the extrinsic evidence may render an ambiguous contract clear”
• “When the issue before the Court involves the interpretation of a contract, summary judgment is appropriate only if the contract in question is unambiguous.”
• “When the issue before the Court involves the interpretation of a contract, summary judgment is appropriate only if the contract in question is unambiguous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).