Hanuman Chalisa, L.L.C. v. Bomar Contracting, Inc.

# Hanuman Chalisa v. Bomar Contracting Court Decision ## What Happened Hanuman Chalisa and Bomar Contracting had a written construction contract that included terms about what would happen if the contract ended early. The contract contained what appeared to be a typing mistake regarding how much money the contractor would receive if the job was terminated. The two sides disagreed about what the contract actually meant. ## What the Court Decided The court said the trial judge was correct to fix the obvious typing error in the contract to match what both parties actually intended. However, the court found the judge made a mistake by using outside evidence (information beyond what was written) to determine the contractor's profit margin when the written contract already clearly stated this amount. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling shows that courts will correct obvious typos in employment and contractor agreements. However, when contract language is clear and unambiguous, courts won't rely on other evidence to change those terms. This protects workers by ensuring written agreements mean what they say—but also requires that terms be clearly documented in writing to be enforceable.