finding support for the intent rule include McInnis v Harley-Davidson Motor Co, Inc, supra at 957 (concluding that “if faced with this stock release containing boilerplate verbiage purporting to acquit ‘all persons, firms or corporations,’ the Rhode Island courts would examine the intentions of the parties to the release with the aid of extrinsic evidence); Sellon v General Motors Co, 521 F Supp 978, 983-984 (D Del, 1981); Manos v Trans World Airlines, Inc, 295 F Supp 1166, 1169-1170 (ND Ill, 1968) (applying California law); Neves v Potter, supra at 1055 (finding that the intent rule best effectuates the purpose of the uniform act in that it retains the Mabifity of joint tortfeasors unless the releaser intended to discharge aU potential claims); Hurt v Leatherby Ins Co, supra at 434 (<HOLDING>). 5 See also McInnis, supra at 952; Lemke v
holding that release must specifically identify persons to be discharged in order to ensure that intent of parties is fulfilled holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect holding that general release must name  or specifically describe parties to be discharged recognizing that the state legislature sought a middle ground based on the intent of the parties and finding that the manifestation of intent must be more exphcit than signing a printed form which happens to contain broad general release language in addition to providing spaces for the specificahy discharged parties holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear