Opinion ID: 3011699
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: A contracted the removal of Y

Text: Informally, such an argument presents an example of equivocation. From this we can distill the following syllogism: 1. All X are Z 2. All Y are Z 3. All Y are X This presents a formal fallacy of the undistributed middle, since Z, the middle term, is not distributed in either the minor or the major premise. The same error is committed in the following ar gument: 1. All women are humans 2. All men are humans 3. All women are men See generally RUGGERO ALDISERT, LOGIC FOR LAWYERS (1997). 17 could be considered environmental r emediation. According to the Pennsylvania Land Recycling and Envir onmental Remediation Act of 1995, actions undertaken to clean-up, mitigate, correct, abate, minimize, eliminate, control or prevent a release of a regulated substance into the environment in order to protect the present or future public health, safety, welfare or the environment are considered forms of environmental remediation. 35 P.S. S 6026.103. Allied's removal of sinter dust from the Saxonburg Plant's structures could reasonably be consider ed a necessary step in the process of cleaning-up, controlling, and correcting the problem. The question of whether the process of r emoving the dust from the raw materials constitutes a remedial activity distinct from the remedial activity of loading and hauling, however, is more difficult. Although r emoving the dust from the material facilitates the job of loading and hauling the dust, it is unclear that simply moving the dust fr om the beams or equipment on its way to be gathered for removal itself constitutes remedial work. By removing the dust from the equipment Allied could reasonably be considered to have performed an important service that prepared the dust to be properly disposed of. A reasonable distinction between loading and hauling the dust and cleaning and otherwise removing the dust from the structures in the plant can be supported by the common usage of the terms. If, by analogy, a friend asked you to help her load and haul her belongings from one apartment to another, you might reasonably presume that such a job entailed carrying boxes and furniture from the apartment to a truck. You might also r easonably presume that you were not expected to clean her belongings, organize them, and place them in boxes. It is not plainly evident that agreeing to load and haul materials necessarily entails a commitment to prepare them for transport. Two reasonable interpretations can be defended, and therefore the terms are ambiguous. Because Allied's handling of the dust in preparation for loading and hauling the dust may well be characterized as remedial work, ther e is a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. See Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Bus. Credit, Inc., 619 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1980). 18 Beyond the four corners of the contract and the plain meaning of the terms, the broader context of the agreements also does not give the phrases environmental remediation or loading and hauling definitive meanings. First, in divining both whether the parties may have intended environmental remediation to encompass the handling, vacuuming, and cleaning of the dust and whether USX's payment for Allied's loading and hauling the dust included handling and cleaning costs, we remain mindful of the circumstances under which this contract ar ose. Allied was awarded this contract to recover losses in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and ther efore the project was intended to be a lucrative undertaking for Allied. To this end, the parties contracted for Allied to r eap all of the profits from the job and for USX to absorb all costs associated with environmental impediments. Any environmental conditions that detract fr om Allied's anticipated profits, therefore, can reasonably be considered to breach the general spirit of the contract. Allied's claim that it should not bear the cost of any envir onmental work is not without basis. Second, in the process of negotiating the ter ms under which Allied would load and haul the dust, Allied made clear in a letter to USX dated September 1, 1993, that its fee did not encompass cleaning: This price does not include pre-cleaning of the building by hand or vacuum removal of dusts, if required AED can perform pre-cleaning on a T&M basis utilizing AED schedule of equipment r ental rates and manpower charging rates attached. USX accepted unit price but did not comment on the disclaimer. Although it did not reply to this clarification, USX was clearly on notice of Allied's intentions. Allied's understanding that environmental remediation was to be construed as a broad term was also articulated in an affidavit by its President, John Ramun: In connection with the negotiation of the Settlement Agreement and in particular what later became Section IV(B)(2), I advised USX that in order to ensur e the profitability of the proposed pr ojects (including Saxonburg) Allied was agreeing to per form, USX's obligation with regard to `envir onmental remediation' 19 covered any material that required special testing, handling, treatment, storage, or disposal. Allied intended to use mass demolition techniques in its`one step' process to dismantle the buildings and facilities, process the scrap and grade the remainingfill material. Any material requiring special testing, handling, treatment, storage or disposal would adversely impact our ability to efficiently generate this scrap. Summary judgment may be granted based on the interpretation of a contract only if the contract is so clear that it can be read only one way. Battaglia, 233 F.3d at 721. The meaning of the terms central to Allied's Saxonburg claim present a genuine issue of material fact, and therefore we must reverse on this issue.