‘Engineering Solutions’ enters into a contract with ‘Bath & Shower’, under which the former is to supply the latter for a period of five years with thermostatic shower valves as intermediate products. Bath & Shower treats these thermostatic shower valves and sells the end products to its customers. Both parties understand and do not dispute that intermediate products are products that are supplied not to be sold to consumers in their existing form, but rather to be combined with other products to form a final end product to be sold to consumers. Clause 6 of the contract stipulates: ‘Throughout the duration of this Agreement, Engineering Solutions hereby undertakes not to sell or supply products to third parties within the territory in which Bath & Shower operates.’ After a certain period, Bath & Shower finds out that after concluding the contract, Engineering Solutions has started supplying its thermostatic shower valves as intermediate products to several competitors of Bath & Shower. Bath & Shower accuses Engineering Solutions of acting contrary to Clause 6 of the contract and consequently holds Engineering Solutions in breach of contract and liable for damages. Engineering Solutions refutes the claim of Bath & Shower. It argues that the term ‘products’ in Clause 6 refers to end products of the sort that Bath & Shower sells to its customers, not intermediate products that Engineering Solution produces. Hence, Engineering Solutions concludes, Clause 6 merely precludes it from entering the market in which Bath & Shower operates. It does not preclude it from supplying or selling intermediate products to competitors of Bath & Shower. In defence of its understanding of Clause 6, Engineering Solutions refers to the General Conditions applicable to the contract. Clause IX of the General Conditions stipulates: ‘The Supplier is not precluded from selling or supplying directly or indirectly to third parties the same or similar intermediate products that it supplies under the Contract to the Other Party.’ Clause IX, therefore, Engineering Solutions argues, shows that Clause 6 of the contract cannot be made to mean that Engineering Solutions is precluded from selling or supplying intermediate products. Hence, it concludes, the word ‘products’ in Clause 6 should be interpreted to refer to end products.