Sunline Commercial Carriers, Inc., Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Defendants Below…

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware held that the Term Agreement was ambiguous because its one-year term conflicted with language keeping its terms effective until the Master Agreement expired or terminated. The ambiguity required consideration of parol evidence, which created a genuine dispute about when the Term Agreement ended and whether CITGO's April and May shipments satisfied its shortfall obligations. The court therefore reversed summary judgment for CITGO and remanded for trial.