Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

OfficeMax v. Levesque (view source)

Revision as of 05:53, March 1, 2023

2 bytes removed ,  05:53, March 1, 2023
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:  
In ''OfficeMax v. Levesque'', the [[First Circuit]] held that:
 
In ''OfficeMax v. Levesque'', the [[First Circuit]] held that:
−
{{cquote|Contract interpretation, when based on contractual language without resort to extrinsic evidence, is a ‘question of law’ that is reviewed de novo.”)
+
{{cquote|Contract interpretation, when based on contractual language without resort to extrinsic evidence, is a ‘question of law’ that is reviewed de novo.}}
 
658 F.3d 94, 97 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing ''Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Racal-Datacom, Inc.'', 233 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2000)).  
 
658 F.3d 94, 97 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing ''Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Racal-Datacom, Inc.'', 233 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2000)).  
 
[[category:breach of contract]]
 
[[category:breach of contract]]
 
[[category:First Circuit]]
 
[[category:First Circuit]]
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,245

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/1936271"

Navigation menu