Opinion ID: 1443950
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The plain meaning of the terms

Text: When a term's definition is not altered or has no `gloss' in the [relevant] industry it should be construed in accordance with its ordinary dictionary meaning. [22] There may be more than one dictionary definition, and parties may disagree on the meaning of the definition as applied to their case, but if merely applying a definition in the dictionary suffices to create ambiguity, no term would be unambiguous. [23] A court must accept and apply the plain meaning of an unambiguous term in the context of the contract language and circumstances, insofar as the parties themselves would have agreed ex ante. [24] As we have stated before, the true test is not what the parties to the contract intended it to mean, but what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought it meant. [25] Lorillard would have us define personal attack as negative criticism and negative portrayal of the characteristics, traits, ethics or conduct of tobacco companies or their employees, and vilification as expressions that disparage, depreciate or lower the standing of tobacco companies or their employees. [26] Lorillard cites several dictionaries to define personal [27] and attack, [28] and to define vilification. [29] Lorillard further contends that vilification does not require defamation and is not determined by tone. Finally, Lorillard cites two cases from other jurisdictions defining vilification. [30] However, both of these cases involved political speech and the First Amendment. We do not find them persuasive in resolving the issue of contract interpretation which is before us. ALF contends that vilification refers to an abusive statement about the target that is false or unfair. ALF would define personal attack as a bitter or hostile verbal assault on a person identified by name or business affiliation relating to an individual's private life. In other words, ALF contends that the modifier personal requires an expressly named target, but neglects to explain why Subsection VI(h) contains an additional modifier whether individually or collectively. We construe this additional language to mean that no express target is required if the target is collectively identified. It is apparent from the dictionary citations provided by Lorillard that a personal attack in the context of Section VI is a verbal assault conducted in an invidious, disparaging, belligerent, offensive, and fiercely or severely critical manner. [31] Likewise, the meaning of vilification, according to Lorillard's own dictionary citations, is a statement that is slanderous, defamatory, or abusive that unjustly denounces its target. [32] The core ordinary meaning of vilification is a denouncement that is both unfounded and abusive or slanderous.