Basis Technology Corp. created software and provided technical services for Amazon.com, Inc.sJapanese-language Web site. Their agreement allowed for separately negotiated contracts foradditional services. Later, Basis filed a suit in a Massachusetts state court against Amazon in part fornonpayment of services that the initial agreement did not cover. During the trial, the two partiesexchanged e-mail messages that outlined settlement terms. Amazon reneged on the terms. Basisfiled a motion to enforce the settlement. The court granted the motion. Amazon appealed.The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed. The parties e-mail notes constituted a completeand unambiguous statement of their desire to be bound by the settlement terms. Provisions are notambiguous simply because the parties have developed different interpretations of them? Assume that, instead of exchanging e-mails, the attorneys for both sides had simply had a phoneconversation that included all of the terms they actually agreed on in their e-mail exchanges. Wouldthe court have ruled differently? Why or why not?