This is just proof that lawyers will fight over anything.  I love it.

Given that the term “sandwiches” is not ambiguous and the Lease does not provide a definition of it, this court applies the ordinary meaning of the word. The New Webster Third International Dictionary describes a “sandwich” as “two thin pieces of bread, usually buttered, with a thin layer (as of meat, cheese, or savory mixture) spread between them.” Merriam-Webster, 2002. Under this definition and as dictated by common sense, this court finds that the term “sandwich” is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans. As such, there is no viable legal basis for barring White City from leasing to Chair 5. Further, PR has not proffered any evidence that the parties intended the term “sandwiches” to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas. As the drafter of the exclusivity clause, PR did not include a definition of “sandwiches” in the lease nor communicate clearly to White City during lease negotiations that it intended to treat burritos, tacos, quesadillas, and sandwiches the same.

White City Shopping Center, LP v. PR Restaurants, LLC, Unreported, No. 2006196313; 2006 WL 3292641, at *3 (Mass. Super. Oct. 31, 2006).  This is what happens when courts issue opinions on Halloween.

And just in case you were wondering, yes, the parties did indeed submit “numerous dictionary definitions for the term ‘sandwich,’ as well as expert affidavits.”  White City Shopping Center at *3, n.3.  You mean there’s such a thing as a paid sandwich expert?  Damn, I’m in the wrong business…