forego independent inquiry and accept that agreement.” Cochran v. Quest Software, Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.2003). As to matters of law decided on summary judgment, such as contract interpretation, our review is de novo. See Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Weathermark Investments, Inc., 292 F.3d 77, 80 (1st Cir.2002). If it were necessary to review the district court’s factual findings, our review would be far more deferential. See Principal Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Racal-Datacom, Inc., 233 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.2000). However, as we will discuss, we believe that the contract is unambiguous on the points necessary for the disposition of this appeal, permitting us to affirm on the plain meaning of the contract alone. See States Res. Corp. v. The Architectural Team, Inc., 433 F.3d 73, 80 (2005) (<HOLDING>). B. Abbott’s planning obligations Hancock’s
holding that this court may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record regardless of whether the circuit court relied on it recognizing that the court of appeals can affirm a grant on summary judgment on any basis made apparent by the record holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports recognizing that this court may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record quotation omitted holding that an appellate court may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record even if the circuit court did not rely on it