argument is refuted by the contract’s plain terms. Vicari’s attempt to support its reading of the contract with the deposition testimony of two engineers — Kerwin Julien, the geotechnical engineer retained by Citywide to collect and analyze the settlement plate data, and its own expert engineer, Ralph Junius — is also unavailing. Vicari’s suggestion that experts in the field would have understood the contract to mean that Vicari was only required to reach a certain rate of compaction is not supported. It is well-recognized that trade usage and custom may be relied upon to find the proper meaning of a contract when the contract terms themselves are ambiguous. Moore v. United States, 196 U.S. 157, 166, 40 Ct.Cl. 513, 25 S.Ct. 202, 49 L.Ed. 428 (1905); Haehn Mgmt., 15 Cl.Ct. at 59 (<HOLDING>). However, the court may not rely on trade
holding that there can be no implied contractual term at variance with an express term of a contract holding that an undefined statutory term should be given its natural ordinary meaning recognizing that although the term good cause is undefined it is at least as demanding as the excusable neglect standard holding that trade usage and custom can be applied to an undefined contract term holding the term lewdness undefined in the iowa abatement statute to be vague