A proactive drafter would not regard he Metz Farms v. Fisher Sand & Gravel case as validating an escalation clause which simply refers to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Instead, the case illustrates how very problematic and uncertain such a provision is, requiring at the least, extrinsic evidence which may be conflicting, and at worst, invoking a ruling of void for vagueness by a less sympathetic court.
Members-only access
To access the full resource, you must be a member. Already a member? Login to unlock.
Login
Not an ACC member?
Gain access to a comprehensive collection of global resources for in-house counsel
Sign up for a 30-day trial
Region:
United States
The information in any resource collected in this virtual library should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on specific facts and should not be considered representative of the views of its authors, its sponsors, and/or ACC. These resources are not intended as a definitive statement on the subject addressed. Rather, they are intended to serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers.