William Blair & Co. v. Fi Liquidation Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “a court must construe a contract according to its own language, not according to the parties’ subjective constructions”
• explaining that “in the absence of ambiguity, a court must construe a contract according to its own language, not according to the parties’ subjective constructions”
• noting that contra proferentem is a secondary rule of interpretation that is only invoked after “ordinary interpretive guides have been exhausted.”
• reversing grant of summary judgment where contract did not state that failure to comply with express authorization provision would constitute material breach
• refusing to find a breach material at summary judgment where the contract did not specify whether the breach was material and no “other conclusive indication [existed] that the parties intended that such a breach would be material”
• extrinsic evidence may be used at summary judgment to construe the contract’s meaning as matter of law when facts not in dispute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).