This case primarily involves

an implied contract

$.$ When a contract$$s writing is clear and unequivocal, the court will enforce the contract according to its

obvious

terms. Interpreting a contract$$s terms from the written document alone is sometimes referred to as the

plain meaning rule

$.$ If a contract term is ambiguous, a court may consider

extrinsic evidence

to interpret the contract.

Assessment question

In this case, the meaning of the word $$chicken$$ is

ambiguous

$.$ Therefore, a court

can

use extrinsic evidence to interpret the contract between Freight and L$.$D$.$T$.$ The extrinsic evidence shows that the term $$chicken$$ was given a

broader

interpretation by the parties. Therefore, the extrinsic evidence of the contract favors the interpretation of

select answer

Assessment question

In this case, seller L$.$D$.$T$.$

select answer

satisfy the terms of the contract by delivering both older stewing and younger broiling chickens to Freight.

Assessment question

A court in this case likely

select answer

find that L$.$D$.$T$.$ did not breach the contract when it delivered both older stewing and younger broiling chickens to Freight. As a result,

select answer

would likely win the case.

Assessment question

What If the Facts Were Different?

What if the written contract between Freight and L$.$D$.$T$.$ stated that L$.$D$.$T$.$ was obligated to deliver $$chicken broilers and chicken fryers$$ instead of simply $$chicken$?$

In this case, seller L$.$D$.$T$.$

select answer

satisfy the terms of the contract by delivering both older stewing and younger broiling and frying chickens to Freight. A court

select answer

need to use extrinsic evidence in order to interpret the term $$chicken$$ in the contract between Freight and L$.$D$.$T$.$ because the meaning of the word $$chicken$$ in this contract would be

select answer

$.$ As a result,

select answer

would then win the case.