Case Name: BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.M. HUBER CORP., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-19
Citations: 355 F.3d 356
Docket Number: No. 02-20655
Parties: BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.M. HUBER CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 355
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.M. HUBER CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-20655.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 19, 2003.
Joe W. Redden, Jr., Robert David Daniel, Beck, Redden & Secrest, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
D. Gibson Walton, James D. Thompson, III, Penelope E. Nicholson, Daniel E. Hinde, Richard Dearing, Ara Ayles Har-dig, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER ON REHEARING
BY THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion in this case is modified by replacing the following sentence, found at 343 F.3d 719, 731:
"We decline to resolve the ambiguity on appeal and, instead, remand for the parties to present extrinsic evidence supporting their interpretations of the agreement."
with this:
"Regardless whether the clause is technically ambiguous, there are factual issues surrounding its application. These matters must be explored more fully."
Further, in Footnote 10, the introductory clause, "In addition to the ambiguous contract language" is struck.
Otherwise, the opinion remains unchanged.
The petition for rehearing is, except to the foregoing extent, DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED, no member of the court having requested a poll.