Opinion ID: 604801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The DLM Software.

Text: 91 Finally, we consider whether Rey's alleged rudeness to Donna Craighead, the DLM project manager, amounted to an unreasonable withholding of approval of the DLM software project in violation of the APA. We conclude that it did not. As all parties agree, the licensing arrangement between DLM and LHP covered only the first installment in the proposed DLM software trilogy, the first installment was approved by Rey prior to her telephone conversation with Craighead, and DLM continued to manufacture and market the first-installment software even after Rey's intemperate remarks. Given the fact that Rey's statements led to no curtailment in the production or sale of the licensed software, we are unable to discern any relevant respect in which Rey's statements to Craighead could be considered a rejection of the product for which LHP had issued its license to DLM. 92 The district court apparently thought that Rey's harsh criticism of the first software installment may have discouraged DLM from undertaking second and ... later installments in the proposed trilogy. Here, however, the relevant consideration is that these subsequent installments had not yet been licensed by the time Rey communicated her criticism about the first software product and manual. Even were Rey's criticism actionable in tort, as an intentional interference with contractual relations, see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766, or as a breach of the implied good-faith duty not to interfere with LHP's performance under the APA, it nevertheless was not actionable in contract. Under the plain terms of the APA, Rey could not reject products not yet licensed or presented for approval. 15 93 LHP attempts to extend the APA's plain language by characterizing Rey's criticism of the DLM project as essentially revok[ing] product approval [of] the DLM software concept  already approved by Rey. LHP does not define the term software concept, but clearly uses it to encompass not only the first DLM product but all subsequent installments in the planned trilogy. Such an interpretation would not withstand analysis under the language of the APA, however, nor comport with the undisputed record evidence. 94 We reject LHP's overly expansive definition of product in the present context. By lumping all DLM software products under the umbrella of a single software concept, LHP would eviscerate Rey's retained right to grant, or reasonably withhold, approval for distinct generations of software products in a particular software series. All conceptually related articles identified by LHP as part of the same series would be deemed approved, sight unseen; the policing of the integrity of the conceptual relationship presumably having ceased to be a matter of legitimate concern to Rey. Courts universally recognize that the elasticity of contract language is limited by the natural meaning of its terms and their context. See K Mart, 892 F.2d at 1085; Boston Edison Corp., 856 F.2d at 365. LHP's interpretation strips the product approval term from its context and depletes its natural meaning.