Skip to main content

W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri

Citations

  • 77 N.Y.2d 157
  • 565 N.Y.S.2d 440
  • 566 N.E.2d 639
  • 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 4465

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining court must examine the entire contract, in order to “safeguard against adopting an interpretation that would render any individual provision superfluous”
  • “Evidence outside the four corners of the document as to what was really intended but unstated or misstated is generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing.”
  • “form merger provision” “plainly manifests” parties’ intention that written terms expressed the full and final agreement
  • “Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts.”
  • “Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts.”
  • “[Wjhen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kaye

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1,025 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.