Rivka is a stay at home mother, who likes to do most of her errands in the neighbourhood on foot. On occasion, she likes to drive to the grocery store to avoid carrying heavy bags. In September 2021, her car has to go into the shop for maintenance. She asks her spouse, Christine, to drive her company car, which is owned by their local municipality, which is Christine's employer. Because Christine is working from home that day, she agrees, and hands over the keys. Rivka accidentally hits a pedestrian on this grocery run, and the pedestrian sues Rivka and Christine.

The lawsuit settles, and includes a release that states that the settlement deals with all claims of any nature arising from the accident, including any claim that could have been raised in the action. The release is drafted by the municipality's lawyers, but both Rivka and Christine agree to this wording.

The pedestrian also agrees, signs the release, but then 6 months later tries to sue the city employer in a third-party claim. The municipality states that the settlement prevents the pedestrian from doing so, but the pedestrian's lawyers say that there is privity of contract, and the municipality was never part of the original action or the settlement.

How might the courts interpret this release, and what tools of contractual interpretation might they apply here?