Opinion ID: 2717726
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: VICI’s Contentions

Text: VICI contends that the District Court attempted to interpret section 5.8 according to its plain terms, giving priority to the parties’ intentions, but ultimately found the provision to be ambiguous. Continuing with this contention, it argues that the Court then appropriately considered extrinsic evidence, but found that it did not clarify the meaning of the provision. As part of the evaluation of extrinsic evidence, VICI suggests that the District Court rejected T-Mobile’s 15 interpretation of section 5.8 as not credible and found that, even if T-Mobile’s interpretation was held in good faith, T- Mobile never conveyed that understanding to VICI such that VICI knew or should have known of it. VICI also argues that the District Court’s decision to sever section 5.8 and enforce the remainder of the Agreement should also be affirmed. It maintains that the District Court properly found that (1) the severability clause of the Agreement showed that the parties clearly intended to enter a severable Agreement, (2) the remainder of the Agreement was enforceable, and (3) the record did not support T- Mobile’s characterization of section 5.8 as integral to the Agreement. Finally, VICI disputes the argument that the District Court ignored the second part of the severability clause, which provided that a severed provision would be replaced with a valid provision that “comes closest to the purpose and intent of this Agreement.” J.A. 893. According to VIC, the Court considered and attempted to replace the severed provision, but found that the ambiguity of section 5.8 prevented it from ascertaining section 5.8’s relationship to the “purpose and intent of th[e] Agreement.” Id. 888. VICI also argues that the District Court properly applied the force majeure provision of the contract to excuse VICI’s own breach. In VICI’s view, T-Mobile conflates the economic hardship experienced after a force majeure event with the force majeure event itself, as (1) VICI could not have foreseen the damage to the car or the steps that it would need to take to repair that damage, and, in any event, (2) T-Mobile waived all of its appellate arguments on damages. We review below the parties’ contentions on VICI’s cross-appeal in which VICI asserts the District Court erred in 16 refusing to award damages for the full $14 million damages it claimed in this case.