United States Federal Circuit

Where terms in a contract have an accepted industry meaning different from the ordinary meaning, there may be amiguity sufficient to rely on parol evidence. However, trade practices differing from contract language are not themselves evidence of ambiguity.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/13/2000
• Published 12/14/2000

Judges

• DYK, Circuit Judge., Before CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and DYK, Circuit Judge.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Philip C. Jones,Braude & Margulies, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Harold D. Lester, Jr., Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General;  and David M. Cohen, Director.   Of counsel on the brief was Richard P. White, Attorney, Office of Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, of Baltimore, MD.