1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Clear as Day: ASBCA Finds No Ambiguity in Contract

Clear as Day: ASBCA Finds No Ambiguity in Contract

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.15.17

In Appeal of Family Entertainment Services, the Board denied a contractor’s claim that the government improperly reduced the amount that it paid under a military base maintenance contract. The contractor claimed, in part, that the parties’ contract was ambiguous as to the definition of the word “days” during the period of performance (PoP), and argued that the Board should read the term “days” to mean “work days” rather than “calendar days.” The Board rejected the contractor’s argument, noting that the contract incorporated FAR 52.212-4, which incorporates the FAR 2.101 definition defining “day” as “unless otherwise specified, a calendar day.” The Board cited long-standing Federal Circuit precedent that a differing opinion of contract terms alone does not give rise to an ambiguity, a reminder to contractors to carefully scrutinize the performance requirements in their contracts, including the PoP and any terms defined by the FAR.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights