With regard to the issue of which party was contractually responsible for providing the temporary fastening hardware needed to erect the architectural panels, the motion court correctly held that the language used in the subcontract between the two parties is not sufficiently clear to permit determination of the issue as a matter of law. We agree that resort to industry standards is necessary to interpret this ambiguous provision, and therefore the introduction of extrinsic...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
