General Industrial Development Trading, Inc. v. Compusa Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

General Industrial Development Trading, Inc., assignee of PL Media, Inc., appeals an adverse judgment following a bench trial on its contract claims against CompUSA, Inc. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. *605 Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir.2002). “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Working, 224 F.3d 1093, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo. Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1088 . This includes the interpretation and meaning of contract provisions, and the determination of whether contract language is ambiguous. Yu v. Albany Ins. Co., 281 F.3d 803 , 807 n. 2 (9th Cir.2002).

The closing paragraph of the March 19, 1997 agreement between the parties reads:

The district court did not err in finding that this provision is ambiguous, both when read separately and in light of the contract as a whole. The provision speaks explicitly of “terms and conditions,” supporting this reading.

We interpret this contract by a standard of “objective reasonableness.” See, e.g.,…