Parler's breach of contract claim

The contract at issue is a form contract. And form contracts must be construed “most strongly” against the writer of such contracts—here, AWS. See Pitts v. Coronado Custom

Homes, LLC, 57 F. App'x 313, 315 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A]ny ambiguities in the contract between the parties must be construed most strongly against . . . the drafting party.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Also, under AWS’s reading of its form contract, Clause 7.2(b)(ii) would make 7.2(b)(i) superfluous, allowing AWS to never have to worry about providing a thirty-day notice. This would also violate the Surplusage Canon (or, the Canon against Superfluity).1 See In re Crystal Properties, Ltd., L.P., 268 F.3d 743, 748 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] court must give effect to every word or term employed by the parties and reject none as meaningless or surplusage.”) (citation omitted). See also City of Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357, slip op. at 5 (U.S. Jan. 14. 2021) (rejecting proffered statutory construction based on surplusage canon), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-357_6k47.pdf. Thus, for both these reasons, AWS’s reading cannot be allowed.
--Document 31-a, Parler's supplemental filing.