Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• stating that “the language of a contract must be afforded the meaning derived from the contract by a reasonably intelligent person”
• ruling that intention of contracting parties controls contract’s interpretation
• stating that “the intention of the parties to a contract control its interpretations”
• meaning determined from the perspective of “a reasonably intelligent person acquainted with the contemporary circumstances"
• the court must place itself "into the shoes of a `reasonable and prudent' construction contractor"
• regulation prescribing price escalation term in government contracts does not supplant price escalation contract term
• “[T]he language of a contract must be afforded the meaning derived from the contract by a reasonably intelligent person acquainted with the contemporary circumstances.”
• “the language of a contract must be afforded the meaning derived from the contract by a reasonably intelligent person acquainted with the contemporary circumstances”