Opinion ID: 219565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District Court's Instruction Regarding the Meaning of the Exclusivity Provision

Text: Gemini contends that the district court erred in concluding that the exclusivity provision was ambiguous and in instructing the jury accordingly. This objection goes to the logically prior question of whether the jury was correctly instructed on the core question of whether there was a breach of contract at all. [15] Specifically, Gemini argues that the phrase any person or entity is unambiguous, and that the jurors should not have been given instructions that allowed them to conclude that Stroup and Greenfield did not fit the definition of any person or entity. Ordinarily, in Massachusetts `contract interpretation is for the court, unless disputed issues of fact bear upon the interpretation of ambiguous language.' Kunelius v. Town of Stow, 588 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.2009) (quoting Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 417 F.3d 193, 197 (1st Cir.2005)). A term is ambiguous only if it is susceptible of more than one meaning and reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to which meaning is the proper one. Citation Ins. Co. v. Gomez, 426 Mass. 379, 688 N.E.2d 951, 953 (1998); see also Lanier Prof'l Servs., Inc. v. Ricci, 192 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1999). Even if the meaning of a term is clear by itself, it may be ambiguous when read in the context of the entire . . . contract, or as applied to the subject matter. Jefferson Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. City of Holyoke, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 472, 503 N.E.2d 474, 477 (1987). The district court did not err in concluding that the exclusivity provision was ambiguous. The relevant language read as follows: AmeriPark (and any officers, directors or representatives of AmeriPark) agrees not to discuss this opportunity or reach any agreement with any person or entity regarding financing for this Transaction or the pursuit of any sale or major financing. . . . As AmeriPark points out, a literal reading of this language precludes AmeriPark from discuss[ing] this opportunity. . . with any person or entity regarding financing for this Transaction. The Outline did not define person or entity, however, and it implicitly contemplated that AmeriPark would in fact discuss the acquisition's financing with other person[s] or entit[ies]. [16] Consequently, reasonably intelligent persons could disagree about what or who qualified as a person or entity. The district court therefore correctly concluded that the terms were ambiguous, and it did not err in instructing the jury accordingly.