In the case of Dutta v. St. Francis Reg’l Med. Ctr., the words “mutually acceptable” were not ambiguous. The phrase related to the process of hiring while Dr. Dutta was notified that she had no permission to use the facility and equipment several months after Tan has been hired. The hospital did not breach the contract as they allowed Dr. Dutta to participate in interviewing, so the healthcare professional had an opportunity to ensure that the new employee will be cooperative. Handler states that social services are often associated with certain ambiguities that can be present in statutes or even contracts. In the case in question, the healthcare facility eliminated ambiguity by including the information regarding the specific stage when Dr. Dutta will identify whether Tan is acceptable for her. The entire paragraph is concerned with recruiting and interviewing a new Medical Director.
At the same time, it is a common practice if any ambiguity exists or is allegedly present, the court will interpret the questionable part. It is also noteworthy that the court is likely to “apply the principle that words should be interpreted most strongly against the person who uses them.” Therefore, since the court decided that the words of the contract were ambiguous, the interpretation was beneficial for Dr. Dutta. However, the hospital’s defense should have stressed that the phrase applied to the recruiting process and could hardly be used further. In addition, it could be beneficial to write in one sentence that the person will be hired if he or she is mutually acceptable for the healthcare facility and Dr. Dutta.