It Meant What It Says and It Said What It Meant, A Contract Must Be Enforced 100%. The "Plain Meaning Rule" in Contract Construction.
With apologies to Horton and Dr. Seuss, we embark on a discussion of how attorneys must 
be extremely careful to articulate all the aspects of a deal in an agreement and not depend on a court to bail them out by adding other elements even if the parties thought they had agreed on these elements but failed to include them in the agreement.
A recent case in New Jersey shines a bright light on this situation. In Microbilt Corporation v. L2C, Inc., Superior Court of New Jersey, No. A-3141-09T3, Decided August 23, 2011 the Court examined and applied the common law rule of contract construction referred to a the "plain meaning rule" or the "parole evidence rule". In this case, Microbilt contracted with L2C for L2C to: "...perform credit evaluations on suitable applicants, reach conclusions about the credit-worthiness of those applicants and quickly (as defined herein) return those conclusions to [MicroBilt]..." The contract defined "conclusions" as "...a score, attributes or a combination of the two...".
L2C began to perform but Microbilt asserted that L2C must also provide Microbilt the underlying data used to calculate the credit scores. L2C disagreed but agreed to contact the provider of the underlying data, a company called eFunds Corporation. But lo and behold, eFunds and Microbilt had some history. It seems that, in the near recent past, Microbilt had sued eFunds for breaching a contract to provide Microbilt some data (sound familiar?) and eFunds had counterclaimed asserting the Microbilt had breached the agreement by disseminating the data in violation of the agreement. This conflict was ongoing. So, in the spirit of spurned lovers everywhere, eFunds told L2C not to even think about giving the underlying data to Microbilt.
L2C told Microbilt about eFunds' reticence and Microbilt sued L2C for breach of contract alleging that "the [contract was] breached because L2C knew it needed to supply the supporting data". The present situation was based on a motion by L2C to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The Court said that such motions were evaluated on the same criteria as a motion for summary judgment. The Court reasoned that:
1. "The interpretation of a contract is ordinarily a legal question for the court and may be decided on summary judgment unless there is uncertainty, ambiguity or the need for parole evidence in aid of interpretation"..
2. "When the terms of a contract are clear, it is the function of a court to enforce it as written and not to make a better contract for either of the parties."
3. "Absent ambiguity, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained by the language of the contract." and
4. "If the language is plain and capable of legal construction, the language alone must determine the agreement's force and effect."
The Court found that there was no ambiguity in that L2C had agreed only to provide a conclusion and that a conclusion was a score, an attribute or a combination of the two and did not involve the underlying data. Microbilt conceded that the language was not ambiguous but said that "...the parties also understood that the underlying data was to be provided as well...". Court said, that may be so but it doesn't matter. If the language is unambiguous, parole evidence (i.e. evidence outside the language of the contract) may not be introduced or considered by the court. Hence, the dismissal of Microbilt's complaint for failure to state a cause of action was upheld.
The rule applied here is a common law rule of statutory construction and is followed by Texas courts. See Baldwin v. New, 736 S.W.2d 148 (1987).
So, word to the wise. If you agree to it, write it down. Don't be left waiting on an egg to hatch.
consequently, could be prevented by Autodesk.
and 
Hart was a college football player that played for Rutgers. EA Sports incorporated Mr. Hart's likeness into several versions of its video games, including 
long and detailed decision
tattoo and Muhammad Ali's catch phrase have in common? They all serve to illustrate some aspect of intellectual property law.
er II. Mike Tyson, former heavy weight champion of the world and famous pigeon lover was in both. The tattoo on his face was featured prominently and in Hangover II, one of the actors ends up with an almost identical tattoo and this is shone on some of the advertisements for the movies. The tattoo design was originated by a tattoo artist in Missouri and the artist retained all rights in the design. He brought suit for damages for copyright infringement and for an injunction to stop the release of the film. In a preliminary hearing, the judge found that the artist had a likelihood of success in the trial and stated that a copyright could exist in the medium of expression here (Mike Tyson's face). The judge declined to issue an injunction against the release of the film by finding that damages would be sufficient remedy. This ruling induced the parties to settle and while the settlement is confidential it is likely that as part of the settlement, the movie company will alter the advertisements to obscure the similarities in the tattoos.
people advising him got a trademark on the phrase. Kobo, Inc. has been using the phrase as a part of its advertising for its electronic reader and using it prominently in several print advertisements. Ali's licensing company has filed suit, alleging that this improperly suggests that Ali endorses the product and since he apparently has not been paid to do so, it is apparent that he doesn't endorse it. 
r her employer. The employer copies the contents of the employee's electronic devices (computer, smart phone, etc) provided by the employer, as the employer is entitled to do, and transmits the contents to employer's counsel. Employer's counsel examines the material and finds several e-mails to and from the employee and employee's counsel, some of which are marked "Attorney-Client Privileged" or something similar. 