cause,” but it did not contain a provision permitting Colameta to terminate his employmentforgoodreason or a provision guaranteeing Colameta’s salary. The absence of these provisions, Protégé argues, means that Protégé had the authority to make unilateral changes to the 2007 Employment Agreement without being in breach. In interpreting a contract, the court “must first examine the language of the contract by itself, independent of extrinsic evidence concerning the drafting history or the intention of the parties.” Indus Partners, LLC v. Intelligroup, Inc., 77 Mass.App.Ct. 793, 795 (2010), quoting Bank v. Thermo Elemental, Inc., 451 Mass. 638, 648 (2008). The court only considers extrinsic evidence “in the construction of ambiguous contract language.” Id. (citation omitted); see id. (<HOLDING>). Where the contract language is unambiguous,
holding that bias interpretation of immigration law is entitled to deference except where the interpretation is clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute holding that actual controversy requirement is met where there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation holding that ambiguity is not created simply because a controversy exists between parties each favoring an interpretation contrary to the others citation omitted