Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Richard Raysman and Peter Brown

Ambiguity is one of the worst fears of a contract drafter. Despite good intentions, invariably contract terms will be capable of being understood in more than one way, or are simply doubtful, equivocal, uncertain or absent. A seminal treatise on “The Language of the Law” began: “The law is a profession of words.” Unsurprisingly then, one of the law’s most important functions is to resolve interpretative problems created by the use of ambiguous language in contracts; however, by the time a court is deciding the issue, costly litigation may have taken years. In a recent case in Pennsylvania, parties to a software development and license agreement confronted this unfortunate truth, and both left unsatisfied. See Apacheta Corp. v. Lincare, Inc., No. 16-2030, 2017 WL 5901085 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2017). In this case, a dispute over software deliverables led to litigation in which the court denied both parties’ motion for summary judgment because the ambiguity in the underlying agreement created an issue of fact as to what the developer was required to deliver, and if the developer made a sufficient delivery, its entitlement to damages.

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.