In International Billing Services, Inc. v. Emigh (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1175, some engineers provided services to their employer under a confidentiality agreement which provided that in the case of litigation, they would reimburse their employer "'for any legal fees, liability, or loss which the employer incurred . . . .'" (Id. at p. 1180.) The engineers then joined an information technology firm, and their original employer brought an action for misuse of confidential information. (Id. at p. 1179) The engineers engaged a law firm to represent them pursuant to a contract that rendered the engineers liable for legal services, but required the law firm to look first to the information technology firm -- the engineers' current employer -- for payment of these services. (Id. at p. 1181.) After the engineers prevailed in the litigation, the trial court awarded the engineers their attorney fees under the contractual fee provision and the reciprocity provision of Civil Code section 1717. (Id. at pp. 1181-1182.) Subdivision (a) of Civil Code section 1717 provides in pertinent part: "In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs." On appeal, the original employer contended that the engineers were not entitled to attorney fees because the information technology firm had paid these fees, and thus the engineers had not incurred fees within the meaning of Civil Code section 1717. (International Billing Services, Inc. v. Emigh, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1192.) The court in International Billing Services rejected this contention, reasoning that "to 'incur,'" as commonly understood, means "'to become liable,'" and that the engineers were liable for the legal services that they received under their contract with the law firm, even though their employer had paid for these services. (Id. at pp. 1192-1194.) In International Billing Services, Inc. v. Emigh (2000) the defendants were former employees of the plaintiff, International Billing Services, Inc., and signatories to a confidentiality agreement that provided among other things that the employee defendants agree " 'not to disclose or divulge any Confidential Information, by publication or otherwise, to any person or entity. You the employee promise to reimburse Company the employer for any legal fees, liability, or loss which Company incurs as a result of any unauthorized disclosure or use of Confidential Information by You.' " ( Id. at p. 1180.) The employees were sued on the contract, and for unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional torts. The employees prevailed and applied for and were awarded attorney fees pursuant to the quoted terms of the contract. The issue presented on appeal was whether this unusual contractual provision was one for the award of attorney fees or a form of an indemnity agreement. The appellate court disposed of the issue by looking at how the parties treated the provision, a common approach for the interpretation of ambiguous agreements. Based on the fact that International applied and prayed for attorney's fees and argued in its papers that a breach of the agreement allowed for the award of attorney fees, the appellate court concluded that "the trial court properly interpreted the provision to specifically provide for fees incurred to enforce the contract." ( International Billing Services, Inc. v. Emigh, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 1186.) The appellate court's extended discussion concerning the application of judicial estoppel ( id. at pp. 1186-1187) was unnecessary dictum as pointed out by the concurring opinion. ( Id. at pp. 1196-1198.) In short, an employer sued several employees for breach of contract, claimed a right to attorney's fees under the contract, did not prevail after a trial, then denied that the contract contained a provision for recovery of attorney's fees. ( International Billing Services, Inc. v. Emigh, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1180- 1181.) The court held that where a party brings an action for breach of contract and the contract contains a provision which the party asserts provides for recovery of attorney's fees, it would defeat the purpose of section 1717 of the Civil Code if the party were permitted to deny that the contract contains an attorney's fees clause. ( Id. at pp. 1186-1188.)