Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Daniel

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “a contract is ambiguous only when the application of pertinent rules of interpretation to the face of the instrument leaves it genuinely uncertain which one of two or more meanings is the proper meaning”
• declining to adopt construction that would read pro- visions out of contract “entirely”
• even though meaning of key phrase in contract was not clear, contract was not ambiguous when only one reasonable interpretation of the contract existed
• “if after applying established rules of interpretation to the contract . . . [and] if only one reasonable meaning clearly emerges [the contract] is not ambiguous.”
• “[I]f after applying established rules of interpretation to the contract it remains reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning it is ambiguous, but if only one reasonable meaning clearly emerges it is not ambiguous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).