10-11-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[97259/1] 7 television services, it still has meaningful choices when selecting between a Standard Definition Digital Cable Box and a Standard Definition Digital Adapter. A municipality might not wish to have the added functionality that is provided by a Digital Cable Box at every location that it would station cable television equipment. This is because a Digital Cable Box, but not a Digital Adapter, grants users the ability to place orders for separately-priced on-demand programming with the television’s remote control device.36 The Side Letter does not establish what equipment the cities must select for each site nor does it require that every member city make the same selection of equipment. The Side Letter thus provides for meaningful choices between types and configurations of cable equipment. Lastly, NSCC’s argument that the Side Letter must be read against its professed intention to “eliminate any additional charges” related to High Definition television services,37 is not availing. A very effective way to avoid charges like Comcast’s HD Technology Fee is to receive Standard Definition television services. For that reason, it is not clear that such a declaration would have apprised Comcast’s negotiators that continuing to provide Standard Definition services under the follow-on franchise agreement was unacceptable or that complimentary High Definition television service was an essential purpose of the Side Letter. In such a circumstance, NSCC’s misapprehension about what type of signal formats it would receive on a complimentary basis is a unilateral mistake as to the “attributes, quality or value”38 of the services guaranteed by the Side Letter. When information about promised services is available to both parties to a contract, each party is equally innocent, and there was no concealment of facts and no imposition, Minnesota law apportions the burdens of any mistake regarding “attributes, quality or value” to the party who made the mistake.39 In this case, the NSCC knew or should have known that High Definition television service is a separately-priced offering that is not extended to every Digital Starter subscriber. It also should have known that Comcast’s pledge to provide Digital Starter packages does not, in and of itself, include the separately-priced High Definition television services.40 For all of these reasons, Comcast is entitled to summary disposition. E. L. L. 36 See Bradley Aff., Attach. E; Swenson Affidavit, Attachs. C, D, E. 37 See, e.g., Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bird Island Produce, Inc., 82 N.W.2d 48, 55 (Minn. 1957) (“The prohibition of the parol evidence rule is not against the use of extrinsic circumstances for the purpose of interpretation ‘but against making them the instruments of contradiction of an expressed contractual intent.’") (quoting Wilmot v. Minneapolis Auto. Trade Ass'n, 210 N.W. 861, 861 (Minn. 1926)). 38 See N. Star Ctr., Inc. v. Sibley Bowl, Inc., 205 N.W.2d 331, 332–33 (Minn. 1973); Bakke v. Keller, 19 N.W.2d 803, 808–09 (Minn. 1945); Beasley v. Medin, 479 N.W.2d 95, 98 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). 39 Id.; see also Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 154 (1981). 40 See generally Bradley Aff., Attach. E.