- 8 -
covered by the extended limitations periods. The
parties, of course, could have formulated their
agreement in that manner but there is no reason
to require them to have done so.
Moreover, under petitioners' construction,
the consent form would have been a nullity ab
initio. We have no reason to believe that the
parties would have undertaken a meaningless act
and we will not interpret the consent to so
provide when there exists a reasonable
interpretation which accomplishes the intent of
the parties as objectively interpreted. "It must
be assumed that an effective and not a futile act
was intended." Stange v. United States, 282 U.S.
at 277.
Petitioners acknowledge in their cross-motion that the
issue raised therein was "previously addressed by this
Court" in Brody I but they argue that the Court's opinion
in Brody I "was mistaken" in finding the intent of the
parties to the special consent. Based upon "new and
additional information" that petitioners claim to have
submitted with their cross-motion for summary judgment,
they ask the Court "to reach a contrary conclusion" from
that reached in Brody I. In the memorandum that
petitioners filed in support of their cross-motion
(referred to herein as petitioners' memorandum),
petitioners assert that there is "before the Court on
this motion" the following "additional facts" which were
"not previously before the Court":
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011