John and Sam entered into a contract whereby John would sell auto parts from his junkyard to Sam's Auto Repair. However, they ended up in a dispute over the condition of the parts to be sold and could not agree on the meaning of terms used in the sales contract. John was invoicing Sam's Auto Repair for considerably more money than Sam thought appropriate for the used and often seriously damaged parts. When Sam paid less than the invoice amount, they ended up in a legal dispute and asked the court to interpret their contract. Which of the following is false regarding approaches the court might use to interpret the contract terms in dispute?
▸ If the terms are clear and there is no ambiguity, the court might look at the common usage of the industry for meanings of the terms.
▸ Where there is ambiguity, the court might look at the rest of the contract to try to discern the intention of the parties.
▸ Where there is ambiguity, the court might look to other dealings between the parties.
▸ The court will supply missing terms and prices that are necessary for the contract to exist.
▸ If the terms are clear and there is no ambiguity, the court might look at dictionaries for literal meanings of the terms.
Quick Reply
