1. i.      Town of Readsboro v. Hoosac Tunnel (1925).  Δ RR Co. was only responsible for leaving the bridge in as good condition as when initially built because it no longer served its contractual purpose, i.e. supporting rail transport (p.3).
    1. Since plain terms did not address the issue, the court looked to circumstances to determine what parties intended the duration of contract to be.
    2. By looking to the circumstances, the Court determined the purpose of the contract and, having arrived at that purpose, used it as a standard by which to resolve the conflict.
      1. Is purpose the same as intent?
      2. It is hard to tell in this case whether Judge Hand was focusing more on parties’ intent or his own sense of justice.  Criteria in this case are not totally clear.