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.
|
I think the CBA was a collaborative effort between the NHL and NHLPA. I don't know if you can sparse out sections and say "well, Daly actually wrote that section".
Contra Proferentem leans more towards contracts that are written completely by one side and given to the other to sign. It's a way of protecting the non-drafter and, I suppose, punishing the drafter who had the best opportunity to spell out exactly what he/she/it meant/wanted. Not applicable in CBA negotiations, IMO.