This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a basic rule in the interpretation of contracts that an instrument must be construed so as to give effect to all the provisions of the contract.[34] In essence, the contract must be read and taken as a whole.[35] While the contract indeed specifically required the Comelec to notify Smartmatic-TIM of its OTP the subject goods until December 31, 2010, a reading of the other provisions of the AES contract would show that the parties are given the right to amend the contract which may include the period within which to exercise the option. There is, likewise, no prohibition on the extension of the period, provided that the contract is still effective. | |||||
|
2011-09-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In the construction or interpretation of a compromise agreement, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the agreement itself, and effect should be given to that intention.[23] Thus, the compromise agreement must be read as a whole. | |||||
|
2011-04-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The prohibition, FSI posits, applies only where the contract was properly and lawfully terminated, which was not the case at bar. FSI also took pains in differentiating its claim for "unrealized profit" from the prohibited claim for "anticipated profits"; supposedly, unrealized profit is "one that is built-in in the contract price, while anticipated profit is not." We fail to see the distinction, considering that the contract itself neither defined nor differentiated the two terms. [A] contract must be interpreted from the language of the contract itself, according to its plain and ordinary meaning."[66] If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of the stipulations shall control.[67] | |||||