Originally published by David Coale.
The contract-interpretation question in Gulf Engineering Co. v. Dow Chemical Co. was whether, after giving notice of termination, Dow Chemical was obligated to provide work to Gulf Engineering for another 90 days, or whether Dow had the “right but no contracted-for obligation to continue assigning work to Gulf.”
The Fifth Circuit found that the contract unambiguously meant that Dow had the right but not the obligation to give work to Gulf, and that the trial court thus erred in denying Dow’s summary-judgment motion on that point. The Court further found that the district court “compounded the error” by instructing the jury that it had found the relevant contract term to be ambiguous. Nevertheless, the error was harmless because the trial court also gave an instruction about the contract that substantially agreed with Dow’s reading of it. No. 19-30395 (June 9, 2020).
The post Charge error, but not reversible appeared first on 600 Camp.
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2Utrzoj
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment