Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0810-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lawrence A. NEWMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PHYSICAL ELECTRONICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-35319.
    D.C. No. CV-99-00147-EJL.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2001.
    Decided Nov. 19, 2001.
    Before KOZINSKI and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Viewing the agreement as a whole, we agree with the district court that the phrase “change in business conditions” was not ambiguous. See St. Clair v. Krueger, 115 Idaho 702, 769 P.2d 579, 582 (Idaho 1989). Therefore, the contract’s interpretation is a question of law. See Ada County Assessor v. Taylor, 124 Idaho 550, 861 P.2d 1215, 1218 (Idaho 1993). Uncontro-verted evidence showed that Physical Electronics had suffered a major loss of business. The district court correctly held that this amounted to a “change in business conditions,” giving Physical Electronics the right to terminate Newman’s employment.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.