The University has not overcome this presumption. The language of the release is unambiguous. The release is also short, common, and straightforward. As a matter of policy, courts cannot disregard straightforward language in the manner the University proposes if parties are to be able to rely on releases to settle their differences. We infer from the University's argument that, by using broad language and failing to restrict it, the University may have released more claims than it intended to release.
Unilateral mistakes are insufficient to invalidate a release, however.
It is categorically settled in Minnesota that a party's outward manifestation of assent, rather than its subjective intention, is determinative. The general release in the parties' settlement agreement unambiguously discharged not just housing-related claims, but all claims and liabilities the University had against Scheurer arising before the date of the release.