Abstract

Much of the contemporary scholarship on contractual interpretation is staunchly against a textual analysis, by which a court can only depart from the plain meaning of a contract exceptionally. It is therefore no surprise that scholars have reacted negatively to the spate of recent cases where the English courts have re-emphasized the plain meaning of the text in contractual interpretation. Yet one cannot help but wonder whether a textual analysis is really so problematic when courts across the common law world have re-embraced it. Drawing from both theoretical and comparative perspectives, this paper suggests that a focus on the text in contractual interpretation, and the corresponding application of the plain meaning rule, is to be welcomed and not scorned.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call