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