context: If the court finds the contract language is ambiguous, it must weigh extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent, and, therefore, the matter is inappropriate to resolve on summary judgment.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 66 Fed.Cl. 736, 743
citation_a.parenthetical: When a contract is "ambiguous, necessitating a review of extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent," summary judgment is not appropriate "if material facts are genuinely in dispute."
citation_a.sentence: See Beta Sys., Inc. v. United States, 838 F.2d at 1183 (“To the extent that the contract terms are ambiguous, requiring weighing of external evidence, the matter is not amenable to summary resolution.”); see also Mata v. United States, 114 Fed.Cl. at 746; Marquardt Co. v. United States, 101 Fed.Cl. at 268; Tecom, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed.Cl. 736, 743 (2005) (When a contract is “ambiguous, necessitating a review of extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent,” summary judgment is not appropriate “if material facts are genuinely in dispute.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 838 F.2d 1183, 1183
citation_b.parenthetical: "To the extent that the contract terms are ambiguous, requiring weighing of external evidence, the matter is not amenable to summary resolution."
citation_b.sentence: See Beta Sys., Inc. v. United States, 838 F.2d at 1183 (“To the extent that the contract terms are ambiguous, requiring weighing of external evidence, the matter is not amenable to summary resolution.”); see also Mata v. United States, 114 Fed.Cl. at 746; Marquardt Co. v. United States, 101 Fed.Cl. at 268; Tecom, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed.Cl. 736, 743 (2005) (When a contract is “ambiguous, necessitating a review of extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent,” summary judgment is not appropriate “if material facts are genuinely in dispute.”).