client of ThoughtWorks, International Decision Systems, Inc. (“IDS”), a leasing software company that is owned and controlled by SVIP, to stop paying ThoughtWorks for its services. ThoughtWorks told IDS that if it was not paid, ThoughtWorks would terminate the services it was currently providing. In response, IDS brought a lawsuit against ThoughtWorks in the District Court of Minnesota arguing that it was entitled to a temporary restraining order to force ThoughtWorks to continue providing services to IDS. The presiding judge in that case denied the requested TRO and found unreasonable wn, 813 A.2d 1094, 1097 (Del.2002); Halliburton v. Highlands Ins. Group, 811 A.2d 277, 279-80 (Del.2002). 24 . Id.; Peden v. Gray, 2005 WL 2622746 at *2, 2005 Del. LEXIS 389 at *6-7 (Del. Oct. 14, 2005) (<HOLDING>). 25 . Harrah's Entm’t v. JCC Holding, 802 A.2d
holding that parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent to the existence of a contract holding that parol evidence can be presented when the terms of the agreement are ambiguous holding that parol evidence is admissible to resolve a contractual term that is ambiguous holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake holding that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent of parties