The issue of contract interpretation is very important. Many disputes center on arguments regarding the definitions used in an agreement. Courts have formulated rules of construction and interpretation in order to find the "intent of the parties." The case is an example of a common dispute between a contractor and owner. The two parties are relatively unsophisticated and likely did not use extensive legal help in formulating the agreement. Please read and prepare written answers to the questions for the case. Lambert v. Johnson & Faulkner, LLC, 2010 Wis Ct. of Appeals 2778, Decided on April 21, 2011. The case is available as a .pdf file: Lambert v. Johnson & Faulkner, LLC What portion of the construction agreement does the Court of Appeals find to be "ambiguous"? What would be the difference in the result if the agreement is found not tot be ambiguous? Does the Court of Appeals define the term "approve" after reading the contract or does it defer to the trial court's interpretation of the term? How would you rewrite the terms of the document if you are J&F to better reflect the views of Ms. Johnson-Faulkner? Does the construction agreement seem to be a valid contract if it were analyzed under the doctrine of consideration? How did the court rule on this issue?