Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
Except that this is wrong. I mean, yes, you would talk to them to get the context, but basing your determination of the proper interpretation of the contract on what the parties tell you they think it means doesn't settle the issue. You HAVE to make an independent judgment on what the clause means. Blankall's interpretation of the wording in this instance is batcrap crazy, but he's right about one thing: what Bill Daly says he thinks the rule means is not the final word.
|
No, that is not correct. If both parties gave you confirmation of their interpretation of the clause and it is the same interpretation, it is not longer ambiguous. The only parties that matter are the parties to the contract, in this case the NHL and the NHLPA. The logical thing is that you ask them first. You only have to make an independent judgment if the interpretation of the parties in question differs. Then you have to make an independent judgment. No lawyer in their right mind would make an independent judgment that opposes the interpretation of the parties to the actual contract. Not asking the NHL and NHLPA is absolutely insane, asking another party that is not a party to the contract (ROR's agent) and using that as confirmation of your erroneous interpretation is crazy.