event expressly or impliedly contained in the contract. Payroll Express Corp. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 659 F.2d 285, 291-92 (2d Cir. 1981). Thus, defendant in Warner-Lambert was obligated to pay royalties only so long as it continued to manufacture Listerine; the contract was not one in perpetuity since it defined the limits of defendant’s obligation. 178 F.Supp. at 661-63. See Timely Products, Inc. v. Costanzo, 465 F.Supp. 91, 96 (D.Conn.1979) (stating in dictum that when federal patent law did not provide otherwise, court would enforce contractual obligation to pay royalties as long as the product was manufactured); Laff v. John O. Butler Co., 64 Ill.App.3d 603, 21 Ill.Dec. 314, 381 N.E.2d 423, 433-34 (1978) cert. den. 444 U.S. 844, 100 S.Ct. 88, 62 L.Ed.2d 57 (1979) (<HOLDING>). In Lura v. Multaplex, 129 Cal.App.3d 410, 179
holding that where the intent of the parties was to enter into a contract for the use of a trade secret in return for the payment of royalties the obligation to pay royalties would continue as long as the formula was used since the parties did not specify otherwise holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties holding courts should interpret the contract using the references of the particular customs and usages of the trade of the parties to the contract holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract