In the context of a contractual dispute, the party claiming a use of the business must demonstrate “the existence and extent of such use”. If commercial use is proven, a court may use it to “supplement or qualify the terms of an agreement.” The explicit terms of an agreement and the tan of exchanges must be interpreted “where reasonably compatible”. However, if the construction is unreasonable, the court will ignore the use of the business and apply the explicit terms of the contract. The implementation of contractual commitments protects the legitimate expectations of the promising, of the person to whom the promises were made. The use of trade underscores such expectations. If a certain trade follows such a regular practice that the promising is entitled to expect that the promiser to have taken that practice into account when keeping the promise, the practice will be part of the agreement between the parties. . . .