Abstract
In recent times contract interpretation has become one of the most contentious areas of the law of contract. There are fundamental divisions among commentators, practitioners and judges (often writing extra-judicially) as to the nature of the task and the permissible aids to interpretation. This article highlights the reasons for these divisions and suggests that the position of those who advocate a liberal approach to the latter issue is sometimes misunderstood. The author argues that there are no convincing reasons of principle, policy or convenience for refusing to receive evidence of prior negotiations and subsequent conduct: in particular, admitting such evidence is not, as commonly thought, inconsistent with the objective approach to interpretation. However, at the same time it is stressed that it will only be in relatively exceptional cases that the evidence will provide a helpful or reliable guide to the true intention of the parties.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
