Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant
If Feaster proved it to be ambiguous though, wouldn't any court rule against the side that wrote it (in this case, Daly) in accordance to Contra Proferentem? His interpretation may be more correct, but unless it's unambiguous in the CBA, it's pretty meaningless.
Not trying to be antagonistic, but that's my interpretation of law. I could be wrong here.
|
As far as I recall, and it's been a few years, that's a concept typically applied to contracts of adhesion, like insurance policies and the like, meant to protect consumers and the layman. It wouldn't apply here as the NHL didn't draft the CBA then put in front of the NHLPA to sign without the ability to negotiate the terms, they drafted the CBA together.