The return to the use of "book value", an unambiguous term (see, People ex rel. Knickerbocker Fire Ins.Co. v. Coleman, 107 N.Y. 541; CBM Equip. Corp. v. Markwardt, 77 A.D.2d 815; Claire v. Wigdor, 24 A.D.2d 992, appeal dismissed 18 N.Y.2d 687), from fair market value, as well as the use of this term in previous agreements, evinces a meeting of the minds as to this term of the agreement. The defendants further maintain that the plaintiffs, as attorneys and fellow shareholders in a closely held corporation, owed a fiduciary duty to the decedents and that they breached this duty by failing to discuss the efficacy of the buyout provision with them. As the Surrogate found, the proof supports the plaintiffs' position that they did not act as attorneys for the decedents in any Ched transaction (see, Stout v. Smith, 98 N.Y. 25; Colton v. Oshrin, 246 App. Div. 287). While it is true that in a close corporation, shareholders must deal in good faith in the conduct of the affairs of the corporation (Matter of Ronan Paint Corp., 98 A.D.2d 413), we are unaware of any dictate requiring one shareholder to explain a provision of a shareholders' agreement to another, particularly when the latter signed previous agreements containing the identical provision in question and the former did not. As of 1981, there had been virtually no contact between the plaintiffs and McGuire and they had never met Priddy. More importantly, as the Surrogate noted, the corporation did not engage in the type of business where there was a close working relationship among shareholders.