NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 4666

_____________ W ES TON AND COM P ANY , I NC.

tr adi ng as BR YC E ' S CA T E RI NG, A N ew J er s eyC orpor at i on, A ppel l ant

v. BA L A GOL F CL UB

_____________ N o. 08- 3239

_____________ W E ST O N & C O I N C , A N ew J er s eyC orpor at i on,

T / A B ry ce' s C at er i ng

v. BALA GOLF CLUB, A ppel l ant

______________ O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 4900) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 4, 20102 ______________ B efore: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: A ugus t20, 2010 )

__________________ OP I NI ON

__________________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ff W es t on and C om pany , I nc, tr adi ng as B ry ce’ s C at er i ng ( “W es t on”) , and d ef en d an t B ala G o lf C lub (“B ala” ) cro ss-ap p ea l from the ju d g m en t of the D istri ct C o u rt e n t e r e d o n No v e mb e r1 6 , 2 0 0 7 a n d a me n d e d o n J u l y1 , 2 0 0 8 . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, w e w i l l affirm i n p art , vacate i n p art , and rem and for further proceedings. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly s u m m a ri z e th e e s s e n tia l f a c ts . W e s to n is a c a te ri n g c o m p a n yo p e ra te d b yA la n B ro d y . B al a i s a pri vate gol f cl ub . O n O ct ob er 24, 20 02 , W est on and B al a enter ed int o a leas e agr eement , underw hi ch W es t on l eas ed ce r t ai n fac i l i t i es atB al a forthe purpos e of p ro v id in g f

o o d a n d b e v e ra g e se rv ice s to B a la’ s m e m b e rs. A f ter th e p a rties sig n e d th is l eas e, W es t on m ade ove r$50, 000 i n i m pr ovement s t o m oderni ze Bal a’ s ki t chen. Pur s uant to se c tio n 4 (a ) o f

th e lea se , W e sto n ’s in v e stm e n t in th e se p e rm a n e n t im p ro v e m e n ts p e rm itt e d it t o d e f

e r th e f irst $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 in re n t p a ym e n ts, to b e p a id in tw e n tym o n th ly i ns t al l m ent s overthe s ubs equenttw o y ear s . A ppendi x ( “A pp. ”) 36- 37.3

O n J une 19, 2006, B al a t erm i nat ed the l eas e, eff ect i ve Sept ember30, 2006. Sect i on 3( c) perm i t t ed B al a t o t erm i nat e the l eas e, w i th thr ee mont hs ’ not i ce, atanyt i m e. A pp. 35. T hi s s ect i on of the l eas e r equi r ed B al a t o payW es t on a t erm i nat i on fee , w hi ch i s di s cus s ed i n gr eat erdet ai l bel ow . Fori t s part , s ect i on 4( a) pr ovi ded that“[u] pon a t erm i nat i on, any unpai d defe r r ed r ents hal l be cr edi t ed aga i ns tanys um s due TenantbyL andl or d. ” A pp. 37. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatW es t on had pai d onl y$17, 500 of the def err ed r ent , and that$32, 500 i n defe r r ed r entr emai ned unpai d. A pp. 25. Sect i on 3( c) i ncl uded tw o cat egor i es of t erm i nat i on fee s . T he fi r s t , w hi ch i s notat iss u e in th is a p p e a l, req u ire d W e sto n to p a ya p o rtio n o f th e g ro ss re c e ip ts f

ro m c e rta in e v e n ts s c h e d u led to o c c u r a f ter B a la p ro v id e d n o tice o f ter m in a tio n . T h e se c o n d , se t f o rth i n s ect i on 3( c) ( i i ) , r equi r ed W es t on t o paythe “una m or t i zed c os tof anyperm anent im p ro v e m e n ts (“ Im p ro v e m e n ts ” ) m a d e b yT e n a n t [ W e s to n ] d u ri n g th e te rm o f th e . . . L eas e. ” A pp. 36. T hi s pr ovi s i on s peci fi ed thatthe t erm i nat i on fee “s hal l be ca l cul at ed as fol l ow s ”: T enantw i l l be r ei m bur s ed forthe port i on of the I m pr ovement s r epr es ent ed by the mont hs of usef

ul l i fe not us ed by T enant . Such amount s hal l be det erm i ned bym ul t i pl y i ng the cost of an I m pr ovement , di vi ded by the us eful l i fe i n m onths of s uc h I mpr o v e me n t a s d e t e r mi n e d b y GA AP, a mort i z e d o n a s tr a i g h t l i ne bas i s , byt he numberof m onths w hi ch the T enantw i l l be unabl e t o us e s uch Im p ro v e m e n t . . . . Id . T h is p ro v isio n a lso p ro v id e d a n e x a m p le o f h o w th is c a lcu latio n w o u ld w o rk : as s um i ng an i m pr ovementw i th a cos tof $12, 000, a us eful l i fe of 120 m onths , and 100 m onths r emai ni ng i n us eful l i fe, the amountt o be r ei m bur s ed w oul d be $10, 000. I d. T he4

c o u r t ’ s s p e c i f

i c c a l c u l a t i o n s i n r e a c h i n g th e j u d g me n ts u m a r e s e tf o r th b e l o w. A ft erB al a t erm i nat ed the l eas e, W es t on fi l ed thi s act i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our ton N ovember6, 2006, al l egi ng cl ai m s forbr eac h of contr actand fr aud. O n February20, 2007, B al a fi l ed an a ns w ert o W es t on’ s compl ai nt , i ncl udi ng s ever al aff i r m at i ve def

ens es a n d a c o u n te rc la im . O n D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt h e ld a o n e -d a yb e n c h tr ia l. On No v e mb e r3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , th e c o u r ti s s u e d i t s f i n d i n g s o f

f a c t s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w, or der i ng j udgm entforB al a i n t he amountof $2, 697. 40. T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t W e sto n w a s e n tit led to a to tal o f $ 6 1 ,7 9 0 .8 1 : $3 5, 04 4. 13 i n S eptem ber di ning room sal es; $1 7, 32 9. 93 i n u nu sed fo od m i nim um s; $ 9 , 4 1 6 . 7 5 in p artyco n tr ac ts; an d $ 0 . 0 0 in p erm an en t i m p rov em en ts. A p p . 3 2 . T h e c o u rt concl uded thatW es t on w oul d be ent i t l ed t o a t erm i nat i on fee unders ect i on 3( c) ( i i ) of the lea se f o r th e p e rm a n e n t im p ro v e m e n ts m a d e to th e k itch e n , b u t th a t W e sto n h a d f a iled to e s ta b lis h th e s c o p e o f

its d a m a g e s “ w ith in a ‘f a ird e g re e o f

p ro b a b ility.’” A p p . 2 4 . S p e c if ica lly , the D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t W e sto n h a d f a iled to p re se n t ad m iss ib le expertt es t i m onycal cul at i ng the us eful l i fe of the i m pr ovement s underG ener al l yA cce pt ed A ccount i ng Pr i nci pl es ( “G A A P”) . A pp. 12- 14. T he courtther efor e aw ar ded no damages forperm anenti m pr ovement s m ade byW es t on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatB al a w as ent i t l ed t o a t ot al of $64, 488. 21: $0. 00 for the funk w at erpur i fi er ; $25, 000 forthe l i quorl i cens e; $32, 500 i n defe rr ed r ent ; $2, 067. 76 forr epai r s t o t he H V A C s y s t em; $540. 46 forr epai r s t o ki t chen e qui pm ent ; and $4, 379. 995

form i s s i ng ki t chen e qui pm ent . A pp. 32. O ffs ett i ng the $61, 790. 81 ow ed t o W es t on, t he c o u rt o rd e re d ju d g m e n t f o r B a la in th e a m o u n t o f $ 2 ,6 9 7 .4 0 . A p p . 3 2 -3 3 . O n N ovember30, 2007, B al a fi l ed a mot i on forpart i al new tr i al , cl ai m i ng thatt he D istri ct C o u rth ad fa il ed to m ak e a n yfin d ing s related to three co m p o n en ts of B ala’s count er cl ai m , i n w hi ch B al a r eques t ed l at e cha r ges , i nt er es t , and expe ns es of enf or cement unders ect i on 25 of the l eas e. O n J ul y1, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed B al a’ s m ot i on, b u t en ter e d a n a m e n d e d ju d g m e n t th a t d e n ied B a la’ s th re e re q u e sts . T h e se c ro ss -a p p e a ls fol l ow ed. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1332, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W hen r evi ew i ng a j udgm entent er ed af t era benc h trial, w e e x e rc ise “ p len a ryre v iew o v e r [ th e ] [ D ]istric t [ C ]o u rt' s c o n c lu sio n s o f law ” a n d its “choi ce a nd i nt erpr et at i on of l egal pr ece pt s . ” A m . Soc' yforT es t i ng & M at er i al s v. C orrpr o C os . , 478 F. 3d 557, 566 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . W e r evi ew t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t f o r c le a r e rr o r. I d .

III Bo th p a r t i e s c h a l l e n g e th e a mo u n to f th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s j u d g me n t . W e s t o n c l a i ms thati tw as ent i t l ed t o: ( 1) a t erm i nat i on fee i n the amountof $50, 613. 49 forthe pr o- r at ed v a lu e o f th e k itch e n im p ro v e m e n ts; a n d (2 ) stip u late d d a m a g e s o f $ 1 2 ,3 3 3 .0 0 f

o r g o lf out i ngs and $666. 22 fordi nnerw ar e. W es t on al s o di s put es the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s aw ar d ofA s the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded, the part i es agr eed t o have Penns y l vani a l aw 1 govern di s put es underthe l eas e. See A pp. 14, n. 11 ( expl ai ni ng that“[c ] hoi ce- of- l aw pr ovi s i ons ‘ w i l l gener al l ybe gi ven ef fec t ’ ” ( quot i ng I n r e A l l eghenyI nt ’ l , I nc. , 954 F. 2d 1 6 7 , 1 7 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ))) . 6 d ef erred ren t, co n tend ing that B ala’s term ination o f th e lea se e li m inated W esto n ’s o b lig a tio n to p a ya n ya d d iti o n a l d e f e rre d re n t. B a la c laim s th a t itw a s e n tit led to late char ges , i nt er es t , and expe ns es of enf or cementunders ect i on 25 of the l eas e. R eso lving the p arti es’ c lai m s req u ir es u s to a p p lyP en n sy lvan ia co n tr ac t l aw . In 1 cons trui ng a contr act , w e must“as cert ai n and gi ve ef fec tt o the i nt entof the contr act i ng p a rties .” M a c e v . A tl. R e f. & M k tg . C o rp ., 7 8 5 A .2 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 6 (P a . 2 0 0 1 ). “I t is f irm ly s e ttle d th a t th e in te n t o f th e p a rt ie s to a w ri tte n c o n tr a c t is c o n ta in e d in th e w ri tin g its e lf. W h e n th e w o rd s o f

a c o n tra c t ar e c lea r a n d u n a m b ig u o u s, th e m e a n in g o f th e c o n tra c t is a s c e rt a in e d f

ro m th e c o n te n ts a lo n e .” Id . (c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). Fur therm or e, the partyal l egi ng br eac h of contr act“has the bur den of pr ovi ng damages r es ul t i ng fr om the br eac h. ” Spang & C o. v. U . S. St eel C orp. , 545 A . 2d 861, 866 ( Pa. 1988) . “[D ] amages ar e notr ecove r abl e i f theyar e t oo s pecul at i ve, vague orcont i ngent and ar e notr ecove r abl e forl os s bey ond an amountthatthe evi dence perm i t s t o be es t abl i s hed w i th r eas onabl e ce r t ai nty . ” I d. A. W es t on fi r s tar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng t o aw ar d a t erm i nat i on fee unders ect i on 3( c) ( i i ) forthe perm anenti m pr ovement s m ade t o the ki t chen. Sect i on7

3( c) ( i i ) i ncl udes a s peci fi c def i ni t i on of how thi s t erm i nat i on s hal l be ca l cul at ed: “Such amount s hal l be det erm i ned bym ul t i pl y i ng the cos tof an I m pr ovement , di vi ded bythe us eful l i fe i n m onths of s uch I m pr ovementas det erm i ned byG A A P, amort i zed on a s tr ai ghtl i ne bas i s , bythe numberof m onths w hi ch the Tenantw i l l be unabl e t o us e s uch Im p ro v e m e n t . . . . ” A p p . 3 6 . A t trial, W e sto n re lied o n tes tim o n yf ro m A lan B ro d yto es t abl i s h the pr opercal cul at i on of thi s t erm i nat i on fee . B r odyt es t i fi ed thatthe part i es had agreed to applya usefu l l i fe of t en y ears for al l kit chen equ i pm ent. A pp . 75 . B rodyal so t es t i fi ed, bas ed on hi s tw enty - thr ee y ear s of food s ervi ce a nd cat er i ng exper i ence , that kit chen equ i pm ent general l yl ast s “[a] l ot m ore than t en y ears ” and som et i m es “i n ex cess o f tw e n ty y e a rs .” A p p . 7 6 . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr efus ed t o acc eptB r ody ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng the al l eged agr eementt o us e t en y ear s as the us eful l i fe f orthe ki t chen e qui pm ent , concl udi ng thatt he part i es ’ i nt entcoul d be det erm i ned fr om the l eas e i t s el f, w hi ch pr ovi des thatus eful l i fe s hal l be “de t erm i ned byG A A P. ” G i ven thi s unambi guous s t at ementi n the l eas e, the D istri ct C o u rtref

u sed to co n side r ex tr insic ev iden ce to the co n tr ary . T h e D istri ct C o u rt al s o concl uded thatB r ody ’ s t es t i m onyw as i nadmi s s i bl e t o es t abl i s h the us eful l i fe of t he ki t chen e qui pm ent , concl udi ng thathi s “opi ni on of us eful l i fe unde rG A A P i s nei ther a d m iss ib le la yo p in io n u n d e r R u le 7 0 1 n o r th e o p in io n o f a q u a lifie d e x p e rt u n d e r R u le 702. ” A pp. 14. Fur therm or e, “[e ] ven i f l ayopi ni on t es t i m onyw er e ac cept ed t o det erm i ne u s e f u l l i f e , ” th e D i s tr i c tC o u r tf

o u n d th a tW e s t o n f

a i l e d t o p r e s e n t“ c r e d i b l e t e s t i m o n y”8

s uffi ci entt o appl ythe ca l cul at i on s peci fi ed i n the l eas e. A pp. 23- 24. T he courtnot ed that B r ody ’ s ow n t es t i m onyadmi t t ed thatdi ffe r enttypes of ki t chen e qui pm enttypi cal l yl as t ed f o r d if f e re n t p e rio d s o f

tim e . A p p . 2 4 . T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t b e c a u se “ th e re is i ns uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch t o det erm i ne the us eful l i fe of anyof the cl ai m ed i m pr ovement s , . . . W es t on has fai l ed t o m eeti t s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng damages w i thi n a

‘ fai rdegr ee of

pr obabi l i ty . ’ ” I d. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t W e sto n f

a iled to m e e t it s b u rd e n to e s ta b lis h , “ w ith re a s o n a b le c e rt a in ty,” t h e a m o u n t o f its d a m a g e s . S p a n g , 5 4 5 A .2 d a t 8 6 6 . E ven as s um i ng, ar guendo, thatB r odyw as qual i fi ed t o offe rt es t i m onyon the us eful l i fe of k itch e n e q u ip m e n t b a se d o n h is e x p e rie n c e in th e f o o d a n d c a ter in g b u sin e ss , W e sto n still fai l ed t o es t abl i s h i t s cl ai m fordamages w i th anyr eas onabl e degr ee of s peci fi ci ty . A s t he D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, the l eas e di d notdefi ne “us eful l i fe” t o be t en y ear s ; i tdefi ned the t erm byr efe r ence t o G A A P. B r ody ’ s t es t i m ony , atm os t , es t abl i s hed thatdi ffe r enttypes of ki t chen e qui pm entl as tfr om as l i t t l e as fi ve y ear s t o bey ond tw entyy ear s . W es t on di d not p ro d u c e a n yc re d ib le e v id e n c e d e sc rib in g h o w th e ter m “ u se f u l li f e ” sh o u ld b e a p p lied in thi s cont ext . N ordi d W es t on s uppl ythe r el evants ubs i di arydet ai l s nece s s aryt o appl yt he depr eci at i on form ul a s peci fi ed i n t he l eas e. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatW es t on fai l ed t o pr oduce s uffi ci entcr edi bl e evi dence t o conductthe ca l cul at i on s etfor th i n s ect i on 3( c) ( i i ) . W e w i l l ther efor e af fi r m the j udgm entas t o the aw ar d of $0. 00 i n damages for perm anen ti m provem ents .9 B. W est on further ar gu es that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed b yfai l i ng t o co nsi der the p art i es’ s t i pul at i ons r egar di ng $12, 333. 00 i n damages forgol f out i ngs and $666. 22 i n damages for di nnerw ar e. A tthe begi nni ng of the tr i al , couns el forW es t on not ed thatthe part i es had s t i pul at ed “w i th r egar d t o t he gol f out i ngs thatpl ai nt i ff i s ent i t l ed t o [$12, 333. 00] . ” A pp. 63. H e al s o not ed the part i es ’ s t i pul at i on that“pl ai nt i ff i s ent i t l ed t o [$666. 22] for dinnerw are purchased fo r defend ant. ” A pp . 62 . T he D i stri ctC ou rtdid not i nclude t hese tw o cat egor i es of damages i n i t s j udgm ent , s ee A pp. 32 ( l i s t i ng amount s ow ed t o eac h party ) , and B al a does notcont es tthatthes e amount s ar e ow ed t o W es t on, s ee Bal a B r . at 21 ( “B al a does notdi s put e thatthe part i es s t i pul at ed t o cert ai n amount s fordi nnerw ar e and gol f out i ngs . ”) , 30 ( “B al a conc edes t o the s t i pul at i ons r efe r ence d i n W es t on’ s B r i ef. A pp. 62, 63 ( T r . ) . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm enti ns ofaras i tfai l ed t o i ncl ude th e se c a teg o rie s o f

d a m a g e s. W e w ill re m a n d th e m a tter to th e D istric t C o u rt to recal culat e dam ages i n li gh tof these st i pu l at i on s. C. W e sto n a lso a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yo rd e rin g it t o p a y$ 3 2 ,5 0 0 in d e f e rre d re n t. W e sto n d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t $ 3 2 ,5 0 0 in d e f e rre d re n t re m a in e d u n p a id w hen B al a t erm i nat ed the l eas e. W es t on as s ert s , how ever , thatthe l eas e “pr ovi ded . . . t hat n o f u rth e r re n t w o u ld b e d u e if L e ss o r v o lu n tar ilyter m in a ted th e L e a se th ro u g h n o d e f a u lt of Less ee. ” W es t on B r . at29. T hi s as s ert i on i s nots uppor t ed bythe ac tual t erm s of theW es t on al s o s ugges t s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byadmi t t i ng the t es t i m onyof 2 W i l l i am H orn r egar di ng the oper at i on of B al a’ s comput ers y s t em, s ee W es t on B r . at33- 34, and ques t i ons the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s cal cul at i on of unus ed cl ub m i ni m um s , s ee i d. at34- 38. W e have r evi ew ed W es t on’ s cont ent i ons , and w e fi nd no r eas on t o di s turb the j ud gm ent of the D i stri ctC ou rti n these r espect s. 10 l eas e. Sect i on 3( c) perm i t t ed B al a t o t erm i nat e the l eas e, w i th thr ee mont hs ’ not i ce, atany t i m e. A pp. 35. Sect i on 4( a) , w hi ch al l ow ed forthe def err al of r entpr ovi ded W es t on m ade atl eas t$50, 000 i n i m pr ovement s , di d notcont ai n anypr ovi s i on canc el l i ng the def err ed r entpaym ent s upon t erm i nat i on of the l eas e. A pp. 36- 37. O n the contr ary , s ect i on 4( a) pr ovi ded that“[u] pon a t erm i nat i on, anyunpai d defe rr ed r ents hal l be cr edi t ed aga i ns tany su m s d u e T e n a n t b yL a n d lo rd .” A p p . 3 7 . A s d isc u ss e d a b o v e , se c tio n 4 (c ) re q u ire d B a la t o payW es t on a t erm i nat i on fee , butthi s pr ovi s i on di d notal t eranyof the def err ed r ent pr ovi s i ons s etfor th i n s ect i on 4( a) . W e fi nd no err ori n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng thatW es t on had pai d onl y$17, 500 of the def err ed r ent , and that$32, 500 i n defe rr ed r ent re m a in e d u n p a id . A p p . 2 5 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t as to th e $ 3 2 ,5 0 0 in defe rr ed r entaw ar ded t o B al a. 2 D. B a la c laim s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yd e n y in g its c o u n ter c laim f o r la te char ges , i nt er es t , and expe ns es of enf or cement , w hi ch i tcont ends ar e ava i l abl e under s e c t i o n 2 5 o f

th e l e a s e . S e c t i o n 2 5 , wh i c h i s c a p t i o n e d “ DE F AUL T . RI GHT S AND R E M E D I E S. , ” s et s for th var i ous pr ovi s i ons r el at ed t o a pot ent i al defa ul tbyW es t on. A pp. 5 1 -5 5 . S e c tio n 2 5 (a ) d e f in e s th e situ a tio n s u n d e r w h ich W e sto n w o u ld b e c o n sid e re d in11

d e f a u lt. A p p . 5 1 -5 2 . S e c tio n 2 5 (b ) e n u m e ra tes se v e ra l o f B a la’ s re m e d ies f

o r d e f a u lt, “ in addi t i on t o al l r emedi es L andl or d m ayhave a tl aw ori n equi ty . ” A pp. 52. Sect i on 25( c) r equi r es B al a t o pr ovi de not i ce of defa ul t , and an opportuni tyt o cur e, befor e exe r ci s i ng anyof the r emedi es s etfor th i n t he l eas e. A pp. 54. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatt he rem ai ning subsecti on s of sect i on 25 – incl ud i ng 25 (d) , w hich aut ho ri zes at t orney s’ fees; 2 5 (f ), w h ich p ro v id e s f

o r 1 0 % a n n u a l in ter e st; a n d 2 5 (g ), w h ich p ro v id e s f o r a 5 % late char ge – ar e onl ytr i gger ed upon W es t on’ s defa ul t . “B eca us e B al a t erm i nat ed the contr act pur s uantt o Sect i on 3, notSect i on 25, ” the courtexpl ai ned, “B al a i s notent i t l ed t o the re m e d ies listed in S e c tio n 2 5 , w h ich a re lim ited to situ a tio n s o f d e f a u lt i n w h ich B a la p ro v id e d W e sto n w ith n o tice a n d a n o p p o rtu n ityto c u re .” S u p p lem e n tal A p p e n d ix ( “S. A . ”) 2 n. 1. B al a cont ends thatthes e r emedi al pr ovi s i ons oper at e s epar at el yfr om t he r es tof s ect i on 25, and thata def aul tbyW es t on i s notr equi r ed t o tr i ggerthei rappl i cat i on. I ndi vi dual contr actual pr ovi s i ons m us tbe i nt erpr et ed i n l i ghtof thei rbr oader cont ext . See M urphyv. D uques ne U ni v. of the H ol yG hos t , 777 A . 2d 418, 432- 33 ( Pa. 2001) ( r ej ect i ng contr actual i nt erpr et at i on bas ed on an out - of- cont extpr ovi s i on that c o n f licte d w ith th e in ten t o f th e c o n tra c tin g p a rties a s m a n if e ste d b yth e re st o f

th e ir contr act ) . W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthats ect i ons 25( d) , 25( f) , and 25( g) , w hen r ead i n thei rpr opercont ext , appl yonl yt o s i tuat i ons of “de faul t ” as defi ned bys ect i on 25( a) . Si nce Bal a t erm i nat ed the l eas e pur s uantt o s ect i on 3, does notcont end thatW es t on d ef au lt ed p u rsua n t t o sec ti o n 2 5 (a), an d d id n o t com p lyw ith the n o ti ce -an d -cu re12

p ro v isio n s o f

se c tio n 2 5 (c ), th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g B a la’ s c o u n ter c laim forl at e cha r ges , i nt er es t , and expe ns es of enf or cement I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our ti ns ofar a s it d id n o t in c o rp o ra te W e sto n ’s c laim s b a se d o n stip u latio n s re g a rd in g $ 1 2 ,3 3 3 .0 0 in damages forgol f out i ngs and $666. 22 i n damages fordi nnerw ar e, r emand t he mat t ert o t he D i s tr i ctC our tt o r eca l cul at e damages i n l i ghtof thes e s t i pul at i ons , and af fi r m the j udgm ent i n all otherres pects .