Difference between revisions of "OfficeMax v. Levesque"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "In ''OfficeMax v. Levesque'', the First Circuit held that: {{cquote|Contract interpretation, when based on contractual language without resort to extrinsic evidence, is a...") |
|||
| 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]] | ||
Latest revision as of 05:53, March 1, 2023
In OfficeMax v. Levesque, the First Circuit held that:
| “ | 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)).