Guy is the director of ‘Meat ‘n’ Bones’, a meat processing company. Bernard runs a professional animal farm. Guy and Bernard conclude a contract according to which Bernard will supply Guy every week with 5,000 kilos of meat products, described in Clause 14 as ‘animal waste and animal carcasses intended for human consumption’. Both agree that six months after concluding the contract, Bernard will start making his weekly deliveries. Six months have passed, and Bernard has by now delivered his first shipment of 5,000 kilos of meat products. However, Meat ‘n’ Bones refuses to pay Bernard the full purchase price that they initially agreed on. Guy explains that between 2,000 and 2,500 kilos of the delivery consists of animal waste that is not intended for human consumption, which he says is useless to the operations of Meat ‘n’ Bones. This, Guy maintains, is contrary to Clause 14, in which the qualification ‘intended for human consumption’ applies to both ‘animal waste’ and ‘animal carcasses’. Bernard is baffled. He understands Clause 14 to mean that the qualification ‘intended for human consumption ‘ only applies to ‘animal carcasses’ and not also to ‘animal waste’. To him, Clause 14, therefore, includes all animal waste: both waste intended for human consumption and waste that is not. Moreover, Bernard is able to show that immediately after the conclusion of their contract, Guy had contacted Bernard, informing the latter that he filed a request for a government permit to store and process animal waste not destined for human consumption at the Meat ‘n’ Bones plant, including animal protein, rendered fats and pet food. Additionally, Bernard can also present evidence showing that days before he delivered the first shipping, Guy's request was denied. The fact that Guy filed this request, Bernard argues, shows that Guy had the same understanding of Clause 14 as Bernard had.

Assume that the language of Clause 14 is ambiguous. Also assume that the fact that Meat ‘n’ Bones filed and informed Guy of the request above shows that Guy shared Bernard’s interpretation of Clause 14.