Rocchigiani as “... the WBC Champion ... [.]” Given the WBC’s unequivocal and repeatedly-stated clear listing of Rocchigiani as champion in the rankings for such a sufficient time, it is beyond any claim of error, or “typographical error,” as WBC later claimed, that the organization viewed him as champion. I regard statements by promoters and members of the press and much later contradictions by WBC as of no relevance on the issue of the existence of a clear and unambiguous contract so viewed by both parties. The WBC Minutes purportedly deeming the fight for the interim title, the promotional items and what fight promoters may have said or not are immaterial issues considering the existence of a written agreement. See Kinek v. Paramount Communications, 22 F.3d 503, 509 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Turning to the issue of compulsory joinder of
holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words holding where terms are unambiguous any facts about the parties intent are immaterial recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear holding that the trial court erred in considering the intent of the parties when the document creating the easement was unambiguous