California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Gault v. Sass Elec., Inc., D069107 (Cal. App. 2016):
The parties disagree on the proper standard of review. The only conflicting evidence in the record is the parties' declarations discussing each individual's subjective understanding and intention pertaining to the payment provisions, but "evidence of the undisclosed subjective intent of the parties is irrelevant to determining the meaning of contractual language." (Winet v. Price (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1166, fn. 3.) Because
Page 9
there is no conflict in competent extrinsic evidence, we independently construe the settlement agreement and stipulated judgment. (Ibid.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.