The plaintiff, Private Movie Company (Efraim), sued the defendant, Pamela Lee Anderson (Lee), for $4.6 million, alleging that she breached both an oral and a written contract so that she could work on a different project. The plaintiff claimed that an oral contract existed on November 18, 1994, when the parties agreed on all of the principal terms of a "deal,"at the conclusion of a "business meeting" at the offices of defendant's personal manager. The plaintiff claimed that a written contract was entered into on December 21, 1994, when the plaintiff's lawyer sent the defendant copies of a "long-form" contract. The plaintiff claimed that this contract was a written embodiment of the oral agreement reached on November 18, 1994.

1. What key ambiguous phrases did the court discuss?
Clue: Find the legal term in dispute that the judge defined. Also, look for ambiguity in the specific elements of the contractual negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant.
2. How did the ambiguity in the alleged contract affect the court's reasoning?
Clue: Do you think the court would have ruled differently in Case 10-4 had the ambiguity not existed?