between both of the parties. This alleged fact is evident by the two provisions which have
terms favorable to the tenant; to wit, the purchase of the property and the right of first
refusal to purchase. (Petitioner's Exhibit "3" at article 30, p.26). The Petitioners, instead
says that the Court should look at this agreement as an agreement that was negotiated
between two sophisticated commercial entities and accordingly no inference should be
construed against either party. For Petitioners, the Court should construe the lease terms
and conditions [*9]in their plain and ordinary
meaning.
The Petitioners argues that the applicable provisions of the lease, namely
article 3, section 3.1, which defines the term fixed rent, is clear and unambiguous and
states that the Petitioner's calculation of the rent arrears, late fees and interest as set forth
in Petitioner's "7" admitted into evidence is proper and in accordance with the terms of
the lease. Petitioner argues that the C.P.A.'s testimony is consistent with the terms of the
lease. The Petitioners argue that if the drafter of the agreement had intended the chained
consumer price index to be used for rent calculation, they would have specifically
included that term "chained" CPI.
The Petitioners claim that Mr. Bandini's calculations and interpretation of
the lease provisions gave each word and phrase its plain and logical meaning. The
Petitioner's interpretation of the lease provision more closely matches the lease and is
unbiased. Unlike the Respondent, the Petitioner states that the landlord did not merely
interpret the lease through a construction that favors the Petitioners, but rather interpreted
the lease by applying its clear and unambiguous terms. The Petitioners state that this