2004

| Table of Contents

| Federal Court Forms

| Law Journals-us

| FRCP-Appendix of Forms-LII

| Law Dictionaries

FederalCivilProcedure.Com		Constitutional Law
	US Circuit Court of Appeals	BankruptcyCode.US
	6th Circuit Case Summaries	UnitedStatesLaw.Us
	05-24-2004	Entertainment

US Codes

| Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

| Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

| Federal Rules of Evidence

| News

A Legal and Business Portal
to The world wide Web

US Circuit Court of Appeals
6th Circuit Case Summaries

2004/05/25 Tue

========================================================================
OPINION SUMMARIES - May 25, 2004
U.S. 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
========================================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONTRACTS
* BAPTIST PHYSICIAN HOSP. ORG., INC. v. HUMANA MILITARY HEALTHCARE SERVS.
========================================================================

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONTRACTS

BAPTIST PHYSICIAN HOSP. ORG., INC. v. HUMANA MILITARY HEALTHCARE
SERVS., No. 03-5084 (6th Cir. May 25, 2004)
The federal regulations incorporated by reference into the agreement
regulate only the amount the government can contract to pay
defendant, and not the amount defendant, as an independent
contractor, can promise to pay plaintiff.

Under Tennessee law, in reviewing a contract for ambiguities, the court considers the contract as a whole. Williamson County Broad. Co. v. Intermedia Partners, 987 S.W.2d 550, 552 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Gredig v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 891 S.W.2d 909, 912 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). “A contract is ambiguous only when it is of uncertain meaning and may fairly be understood in more ways than one. A strained construction may not be placed on the language used to find ambiguity where none exists.” Farmers-Peoples Bank v. Clemmer, 519 S.W.2d 801, 805 (Tenn. 1975). However, “[a] contract is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties disagree as to the interpretation of one or more of its provisions.” International Flight Ctr. v. City of Murfreesboro, 45 S.W.3d 565, 570 n.5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court to decide. Hamblen County v. City of Morristown, 656 S.W.2d 331, 335-36 (Tenn. 1983). “Where a contract is clear and unambiguous, parties’ intentions are to be determined from the four corners of the contract.” Bokor v. Holder, 722 S.W.2d 676, 679 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). Even when the agreement is unambiguous, however, the court may “‘consider the situation of the parties and the accompanying circumstances at the time it was entered into – not for the purpose of modifying or enlarging or curtailing its terms, but to aid in determining’” the contract’s meaning. Hamblen, 656 S.W.2d at 334 (internal quotation marks omitted).

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/04a0152p.html