I like this direct language from the introductory paragraph of a new Ninth Circuit case – Arizona v. Tohonto O’odham Nation, 2016 WL 1211834:
“This appeal requires us to consider whether sophisticated, represented parties really meant what they wrote in a gaming compact that was duly executed after years of tedious negotiations. Like the district court, we hold the parties to their words, and affirm the district court’s orders……”
Illustrates a simple, direct and effective way to argue breach:
Defendants negotiated and signed a contract – they should be held to their words.