Crowley v. Texaco, Inc.

Under the majority opinion, the thirty-day requirement under (ll)(b) is meaningless. If, indeed, it is meaningless, then why did the parties place it in the lease agreement?

The contracting parties placed 40 words in (ll)(a) and 114 words in (UXb). Reasonably, I must conclude that the parties attached equal significance to (ll)(a) and (ll)(b), if not more to (UXb). Under the majority’s rationale, the lease is entirely for the benefit of Texaco. I cannot believe that this is fair as the lease was supported by valid consideration with mutual benefits.

I do not believe that (ll)(b) can be…