In Mobil Oil Corp. v. Exxon Corp (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 942, plaintiffs suggested an alternative interpretation of arbitration provisions, which they argued were ambiguous. Because the trial court did not defer to that reasonable interpretation, but instead, substituted its own interpretation in granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs' contract claims, the appellate court reversed. It was in this context that the appellate court observed that "an opportunity should have been given to introduce extrinsic evidence to assist the court in interpreting and applying the arbitration provisions to the facts of this case." (Id. at p. 948.)