Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyBeers
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.
|
Sorry dude, this is not how the law works. If a document can be interpreted coherently within the four corners of the document, it doesn't matter if both parties swear up and down that they meant something different.
Now, in this case, you might predict that a court would say the meaning is too ambiguous to resolve simply by looking at the contract itself (including not just the wording but the agreement as a whole and the surrounding language to see if that sheds light). In which case they start looking at extrinsic evidence, such as prior drafts of the agreement, old CBA's and yes, potentially testimony from the parties to try to resolve the issue. And you might be right to make that prediction.
But the order you suggest - ask the parties what it means and only come to an independent judgment if they disagree - is simply wrong at law. Which is why the first thing you do is make that independent and objective judgment just looking at the words on the page.
However, as you'll note, I did agree with you that they SHOULD have asked the NHL, from a practical point of view.