Pharma Conference Education, Inc. v. State of Tennessee (Concurring)

I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately only to elaborate on the admissibility of extrinsic evidence, versus how it may be used. 

The extrinsic evidence at issue in this case is Mr. Smith’s deposition testimony. During the deposition, the State’s counsel asked Mr. Smith whether it was his “understanding that it was within Pharma’s ability and Pharma’s sole determination to decide what conferences were feasible to produce?” Mr. Smith responded, “Yes.” Discussing this evidence, the majority opinion says that evidence of “a party’s subjective views on the contract’s meaning . . . should not be considered.”