In deciding Hearst Communications v. The Seattle Times Co., the state's high court also rejected a plea by the Committee for a Two-Newspaper Town, a citizens-group intervenor in the case.

The ad-hoc group, supported by the local newspaper-workers union, argued that public policy favors continued publication of two newspapers over contract language that might curtail their operation.

"There is ample case law making it clear that generalized public-policy concerns cannot be used to rewrite a clear and lawful contract," the court said.

While the stakes may be a high-profile matter, the Supreme Court said the case itself was a simple contract dispute.

"The law of contracts is the same whether the parties are two publishing giants fighting for market control or two individuals disputing the cost of appliance repair work," the court said.

The court also noted in a footnote that the committee's arguments presume that ending the two companies' joint-operating agreement would mean the demise of Hearst's Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Whether Hearst would decide to close the P-I is beyond our ability either to predict or prevent," the ruling said.

The court also clarified a key element in state contract law. Hearst attorneys cited the court's 1990 Berg decision as an argument that the intent of the JOA should prevail over its specific language.

The Berg decision, which related to a real-estate dispute, said state courts should look beyond contract language to the context in which the contract was signed and to the signers' intent.

But the Supreme Court noted that subsequent decisions have modified Berg to focus on contract language rather than the "unexpressed subjective intent" of the signers.

"When interpreting contracts," the court said, "the subjective intent of the parties is generally irrelevant if the intent can be determined from the actual words used."

— Bill Richards