Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States

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" | 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” | "The unexpressed, subjective unilateral intent of one party is insufficient to bind the other contracting party ....”