Opinion ID: 6108334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contract Construction Principles

Text: The parties rely on conflicting interpretations of section 11.1, but both assert the Settlement Agreement is unambiguous. A contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree about its meaning and may be ambiguous even though the parties agree it is not. 20 Both the presence of ambiguity and interpretation of an unambiguous contract are questions of law we review de novo using well-settled contract-construction principles. 21 When a contract's meaning is disputed, our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the parties' intent as expressed in the instrument. 22 Objective manifestations of intent control, 23 not what one side or the other alleges they  intended to say but did not. 24 We therefore presume parties intend what the words of their contract say 25 and interpret contract language according to its plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning unless the instrument directs otherwise. 26 We are also cognizant that words are simply implements of communication, and imperfect ones at that. Oftentimes they cannot be assigned a rigid meaning, inherent in themselves. Rather, their meaning turns upon use, adaptation and context as they are employed to fit various and varying situations. 27 Even a single word can carry subtle-and significant-differences in meaning when applied to different situations. Accordingly, to home in on the meaning the parties intended, we have long allowed that words must be construed in the context in which they are used. Context is not, however, confined to the two-dimensional contractual environs in which the words exist but may also encompass the circumstances present when the contract was entered. 28 This is so because words are the skin of a living thought, 29 and our quest is to determine, objectively, what an ordinary person using those words under the circumstances in which they are used would understand them to mean.