5 Notably absent from the notice clause are words such as “only” or “must,” or phrases such as “all other methods of notice are insufficient,” which would clearly limit the methods of notice to those listed. 6 “A court will not rewrite the contract of the parties.” 11 Williston, Contracts §31:5 (4th ed.). 7 See Baybank v. George, 3 Mass. L. Rptr. 473 (1995) (stating that notice served in the listed ways would be adequate even if allegedly unreceived). 8 See Cummings Properties, LLC v. Eaton Corp. 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 609 n.2 (2001) (indicating that the language “notice .. . shall be deemed duly served when served by constable, or delivered ... by certified mail...” did not limit the methods of giving notice to those listed); see also Korey v. Sheff, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 266, 267-68 (1975) (<HOLDING>). 9 As the plaintiffs, no doubt, are now well
holding that language similar to the above did not exclude other methods of notice holding that similar language provided a sufficient general jurisdiction allegation holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner holding similar language to be a valid disclaimer holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city