Russell is a purchasing manager at Broncos Kicks, a shoe manufacturer in Denver. For years, he has been buying shoe soles from sales manager Justin at Chargers Soles in Los Angeles. They have a cordial relationship and do not feel the need to update their contract other than to change the dates and sales prices each year.

The contract states ambiguously that the soles $$shall be tendered at the location for delivery.$$ What the $$location for delivery$$ means was never defined. Perplexingly, this ambiguous drafting has been allowed to linger in the contract for years without correction. Russell and Justin are aware that the industry standard when the contract was drafted initially was that the $$location for delivery$$ meant the rail station in the manufacturer$$s city and that the buyer would have to pick them up or arrange from them to be shipped from there. In previous years Russell and Justin agreed to instead have the soles delivered directly to the Broncos$$ factory, saving Broncos a trip.

Before signing this year$$s contract Justin orally informs Russell that due to rising shipping prices Chargers Soles would like it if Broncos Kicks would pick up the soles from Chargers$$ warehouse in Los Angeles instead. Russell doesn$$t see much problem with this, but after a few pickups he realizes that the increased cost is driving down his company$$s margins. He demands that Justin either resume shipping directly to the factory or follow the industry standard and get them to the rail station in Denver.

With whom is a court likely to side, and why?