A customer signed an equipment lease and services agreement with a big communication company. Upon theft of the equipment the company sought to charge the client for it.
The Court held that while the agreement may be construed in several manners and is unclear as to who bears the liability in such a case. However, because this is an agreement between a large service provider and a customer, the company had the opportunity to write clearly in the agreement that in the event of theft the customer will be obligated to pay the value of the equipment. Moreover, the company could have clearly mentioned the value of the equipment that. For this reason, and because the contract was drawn up by the company without any influence of other party (the customer), it should be construed to the benefit of the customer and thus the claim was rejected.