This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-12-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing premises noted, the Court of Appeals, therefore, committed reversible error in interpreting the subject exclusivity clause to apply merely to those products in direct competition to those manufactured and sold by petitioner Avon. When the terms of the agreement are clear and explicit, that they do not justify an attempt to read into any alleged intention of the parties, the terms are to be understood literally just as they appear on the face of the contract.[30] Thus, in order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, "the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret."[31] It has been held that once this intention of the parties has been ascertained, it becomes an integral part of the contract as though it has been originally expressed therein in unequivocal terms.[32] | |||||