Opinion ID: 31349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 2002). If “the words of a contract are clear

Text: We review a summary judgment de novo. and explicit and lead to no absurd King v. Ames, 179 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. consequences, no further interpretation may be 1999). Summary judgment “shall be rendered made in search of the parties’ intent.” LA. forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2046 (West 1987). “The to interrogatories, and admissions on file, rules of construction do not authorize a together with the affidavits, if any, show that perversion of the words or the exercise of there is no genuine issue of material fact and inventive powers to create an ambiguity where that the moving party is entitled to judgment none exists or the making of a new contract as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). In when the terms express with sufficient the context of contract interpretation, “only clearness the part ies’ intent.” Campbell v. when there is a choice of reasonable Melton, 817 So. 2d 69, 76 (La. 2002) interpretation of the contract is there a (citations omitted). “The fact that one party material fact issue concerning the parties’ may create a dispute about the meaning of a intent that would preclude summary judg- contractual provision does not render the ment.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Tex. Meridian provision ambiguous.” Id. Res. Exploration, Inc., 180 F.3d 664, 669 (5th Cir. 1999). Key to the district court’s conclusion that Santa Fe was required to deliver all of its pro-