InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

glennymo

02/17/05 9:05 AM

#95381 RE: laranger #95375

seems to me that the millions sucked out of this company by management would have been better spent hiring a contract lawyer that could make the wording and the intent of the contract be the same thing. pitiful.....
icon url

Ghors

02/17/05 9:21 AM

#95386 RE: laranger #95375

Ranger: When interpreting a contract the courts look to the four corners rule. If the language is clear and unambiguous, then there can be no interpretation other than the clear language of the contract. If ambiquous, then the courts will take oral testimony as to intent.

So, if the contract is clear, then intent is only what is stated.

To all: My thoughts of the last few posts don't necessarily have anything to do with what I believe. They are just responses to questions about legal matters.

I am long and like Loop and others, I believe SE/E is an assign and the contract with NOK is triggered. I have no clue on the rate to come and only hope it is considerable. Thanks everyone for all your posts and insight.

Ghors