Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Arbitration and Contract Law pp 229–248Cite as

Interpretation of Written Contracts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2166 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 54))

Abstract

The topic of interpretation of written contracts is of central importance in arbitration practice. The English principles have developed fast in recent decades and the law remains in a state of radical, hectic, and sometimes perplexing development or doctrinal re-examination. However, some points have survived this wave of change. For example, English law does not, in general, permit a party to adduce evidence of pre-contractual negotiations in an attempt to illuminate the final text, but such evidence is regularly admitted if the same party adds a claim for rectification of the document. Another controversy is whether, even without resorting to the doctrine of rectification, the ordinary system of interpretation should permit the adjudicator to alter the text in order to give effect to the clear double conclusion (drawn simply from within the four corners of the document) that the text is obviously defective and obviously capable of being patched up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See literature cited in note at 14.02.

  2. 2.

    [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] AC 1619, at [15]; substantially reproducing his synopsis in Marley v. Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2; [2015] AC 129, at [19].

  3. 3.

    Main textbooks: R Calnan, Principles of Contractual Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2014); K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015); G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn 2011); for comments by the author, Neil Andrews, Contract Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, 2015), chapter 14 (and citing a vast bibliography on this topic); ‘Judicial Interpretation of Written Contracts: A Civilian Lawyer’s Guide to the Principles of English Law’ (2012) 205 Revista de Processo, 163–180; ‘La interpretación de los contratos por escrito en Inglaterra’ (2014) XLII Revista de Derecho (Chile) 39–46; ‘Interpretation of Written Contracts’ (2014) 2 Russian LJ 12–28; and ‘Interpretation of Written Contracts in England’ (2013) Lis International (Italy) 156–162; ‘The Devil is in the Detail: Procedural and Substantive Aspects of the Interpretation of Written Contracts in England’, in Jens Adolphsen, Joachim Goebel, Ulrich Haas, Burkhard Hess, Stephan Kolmann, Markus Würdinger (eds), Festschrift für Peter Gottwald zum 70. Geburtstag (CH Beck, 2014), 23–32.

  4. 4.

    Andrews on Civil Processes (Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, 2013), vol I, Court Proceedings, at 15.12 and 15.72 ff.

  5. 5.

    Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, 912–13, HL; this statement was treated by the UK Supreme Court as canonical in Re Sigma Finance Corporation (in administrative receivership) [2009] UKSC 2; [2010] 1 All ER 571; [2010] BCC 40, at [10]. For an attractive analysis of the entire bundle of rules, Lord Grabiner, ‘The Iterative Process of Contractual Interpretation’ (2012) 128 LQR 41.

  6. 6.

    Kirin-Amgen Inc v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46; [2005] 1 All ER 667; [2005] RPC 9, at [32], per Lord Hoffmann, noting that: ‘I have discussed these questions at some length in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v. Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749 and Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896.’

  7. 7.

    See 14.26 on the five rationales for this bar.

  8. 8.

    Daventry District Council v. Daventry & District Housing Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1153; [2012] 1 WLR 1333, at [227], per Etherton LJ.

  9. 9.

    eg, Chartbrook Ltd v. Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] 1 AC 1101; Pink Floyd Music Ltd v. EMI Records Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1429; [2011] 1 WLR 770.

  10. 10.

    See Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, 912–3, HL, which he traced to decisions in the 1970s: Prenn v. Simonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381, 1384–6, HL and Reardon Smith Line Limited v. Hansen Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989, HL; in the Prenn case, at 1384, Lord Wilberforce traced the ‘anti-literal’ approach to mid-nineteenth century case law.

  11. 11.

    Reardon Smith Line Limited v. Hansen Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989, 995–6, HL; Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v. Fagan [1997] AC 313, 384, HL, per Lord Mustill: ‘The words must be set in the landscape of the instrument as a whole.’

  12. 12.

    Rainy Sky SA v. Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50; [2011] 1 WLR 2900, at [20], [21], [40]; and note Procter and Gamble Co v. Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA [2012] EWCA Civ 1413, at [22] and at [38], per Moore-Bick and Rix LJJ.

  13. 13.

    In Re Sigma Finance Corporation (in administrative receivership) [2009] UKSC 2; [2010] 1 All ER 571; [2010] BCC 40; Lord Mustill in Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v. Fagan [1997] AC 313, 384, HL, quoted in the Sigma case, ibid, at [9].

  14. 14.

    Investors Compensation Scheme case [1998] 1 WLR 896, 912–3, HL (propositions (iv) and (v)); Arden LJ in Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v. Landmain Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 736; [2013] Ch 305, at [63]; AS Burrows, ‘Construction and Rectification’ in AS Burrows and E Peel (eds), Contract Terms (Oxford University Press, 2007), 77; R Buxton, ‘“Construction” and Rectification After Chartbrook’ [2010] CLJ 253; D Hodge, Rectification: The Modern Law and Practice Governing Claims of Rectification (2nd edn, London, 2015); G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn 2011), chapter 17; G McMeel, ‘The Interplay of Contractual Construction and Civil Justice...’ (2011) European Business L Rev 437–449.

  15. 15.

    [1998] 1 WLR 896, 912–13, HL; and this statement was treated by the UK Supreme Court as canonical in Re Sigma Finance Corporation (in administrative receivership) [2009] UKSC 2; [2010] 1 All ER 571; [2010] BCC 40, at [10].

  16. 16.

    Prenn v. Simonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381, 1383 G, HL.

  17. 17.

    Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen Inc v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46; [2005] 1 All ER 667; [2005] RPC 9 (for a magisterial overview at [27] to [35]), noting at [30]: ‘The speeches of Lord Wilberforce in Prenn v. Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381 and Reardon Smith Line Ltd v. Yngvar Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989 are milestones along this road.’

  18. 18.

    [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] AC 1619, notably at [[15] to [22], per Lord Neuberger.

  19. 19.

    Absalon v. TRCU Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1586; [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 375; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 129 approving Aikens J in Absalon v. TRCU Ltd [2005] EWHC 1090 (Comm); [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 735, at [24] and [25].

  20. 20.

    [2009] EWHC 2771 (Comm); [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 399, at [35]

  21. 21.

    [2013] EWHC 3278 (Comm), at [46].

  22. 22.

    [2008] EWHC 2127 (Patents Court); not disturbed on appeal, [2009] EWCA Civ 668.

  23. 23.

    Barbudev v. Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria Eood [2012] EWCA Civ 548; [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 963, at [31], noting Rainy Sky v. Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900 at [21] per Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony JSC.

  24. 24.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 2–03 ff (objectivity); 2–07 ff (business common-sense); G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 3 (objectivity); 1.70 to 1.72f and 1.158 (business common-sense).

  25. 25.

    For comparative observations on interpretation of contracts, MJ Bonell, ‘The UNIDROIT Principles and CISG – Sources of Inspiration for English Courts?’ [2006] 11 Uniform Law Review 305; MJ Bonell (ed), The UNIDROIT Principles in Practice: Case Law and Bibliography on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2nd ed, Ardsley, New York, USA, 2006), 144; Eric Clive in H MacQueen and R Zimmermann (eds), European Contract Law: Scots and South African Perspectives (Edinburgh University Press, 2006), chapter 7 at 183; E Allan Farnsworth, ‘Comparative Contract Law’ in M Reimann and R Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 2006), chapter 28, at 920 ff.; C Valke, ‘On Comparing French and English Contract Law: Insights from Social Contract Theory’ (2009) Jo of Comparative Law 69–95 (cited as ‘illuminating’ by Lord Hoffmann in the Chartbrook case [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] 1 AC 1001, at [39]); ‘Contractual Interpretation: at Common Law and Civil Law: An Exercise in Comparative Legal Rhetoric’ in JW Neyers, R Bronaugh, SGA Pitel (eds), Exploring Contract Law (Hart, Oxford, 2009), 77–114; S Vogenauer, ‘Interpretation of Contracts: Concluding Comparative Observations’, in AS Burrows and E Peel (eds), Contract Terms (Oxford University Press, 2007), chapter 7; S Vogenauer and J Kleinheisterkamp (eds), Commentary on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (Oxford University Press, 2009), 311; K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (trans Tony Weir, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 1998), chapter 30 (although their discussion of English law is now out-of-date, because of the developments in the present text).

  26. 26.

    [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] AC 1619, at [17].

  27. 27.

    In Kirin-Amgen Inc v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46; [2005] 1 All ER 667; [2005] RPC 9, at [32].

  28. 28.

    ibid.

  29. 29.

    Rainy Sky SA v. Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50; [2011] 1 WLR 2900, at [20].

  30. 30.

    ibid.

  31. 31.

    ibid, respectively at [20], [21], [40]; cited in L Batley Pet Products Ltd v. North Lanarkshire Council [2014] UKSC 27; [2014] 3 All ER 64, at [18].

  32. 32.

    [1985] AC 191, 201, HL.

  33. 33.

    [1997] AC 749, HL (a majority decision concerning a rent notice); PV Baker (1998) 114 LQR 55–62.

  34. 34.

    [2003] UKHL 12; [2004] 1 AC 715, at [12]; and see similar remarks at [10] (Lord Bingham noted The Okehampton’ [1913] P 173, 180, per Hamilton LJ, later Lord Sumner).

  35. 35.

    [2010] UKSC 47; [2011] 1 All ER 175, at [21]; decision criticised D McLaughlan, ‘A Construction Conundrum’ [2011] LMCLQ 428–448.

  36. 36.

    [1998] 1 WLR 896, 913, HL.

  37. 37.

    [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] AC 1619, at [19].

  38. 38.

    [2012] EWCA Civ 1413, at [22] and at [38], per Moore-Bick and Rix LJJ.

  39. 39.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 2-07(d), 2–08.

  40. 40.

    [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] AC 1619, at [20].

  41. 41.

    [1962] AC 600, 626, HL.

  42. 42.

    [1997] AC 313, 388, HL.

  43. 43.

    [2011] EWCA Civ 353; [2012] 1 WLR 472.

  44. 44.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 7–02, 7–03; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 4–01 ff.

  45. 45.

    [1974] AC 235, HL; noted by JH Baker, [1973] CLJ 196, R Brownsword, (1974) 37 MLR 104, and FA Mann, (1973) 89 LQR 464.

  46. 46.

    [1997] AC 313, HL.

  47. 47.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 3–17, 3–18; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 5.40 ff.

  48. 48.

    [1998] 1 WLR 896, 912–3, HL; E McKendrick, in S Worthington (ed) Commercial Law and Commercial Practice (London, 2003) 139–62.

  49. 49.

    Prenn v. Simonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381, 1384–6, HL and Reardon Smith Line Limited v. Hansen Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989, HL; in the Prenn case, at 1384, Lord Wilberforce traced the ‘anti-literal’ approach to mid-nineteenth century case law.

  50. 50.

    The leading comment is by Lord Wilberforce in Reardon Smith Line Limited v. Hansen Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989, 995–6, HL; see Sir Christopher Staughton [1999] CLJ 303 on the problem of the ‘factual matrix’.

  51. 51.

    Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v. Fagan [1997] AC 313, 384, HL, per Lord Mustill: ‘The words must be set in the landscape of the instrument as a whole.’

  52. 52.

    Marley v. Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2; [2015] AC 129, at [20], Lord Neuberger citing Lord Hoffmann in Kirin-Amgen Inc v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46; [2005] 1 All ER 667; [2005] RPC 9, at [64].

  53. 53.

    Marley v. Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2; [2015] AC 129, at [20], Lord Neuberger citing Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Arbuthnott v. Fagan [1995] CLC 1396, 1400.

  54. 54.

    [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] AC 1619, at [15]; substantially reproducing his synopsis in Marley v. Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2; [2015] AC 129, at [19].

  55. 55.

    [2001] 1 AC 251, at [39], HL.

  56. 56.

    [2012] EWCA Civ 1413, at [38].

  57. 57.

    The leading rules are codified at CPR Part 31: for comment on these procedural rules, Andrews on Civil Processes (Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, 2013), vol I, Court Proceedings, at chapter 11.

  58. 58.

    Sigma case, [2009] UKSC 2; [2010] 1 All ER 571; [2010] BCC 40, at [35] to [37], Lord Collins (with the support of Lords Mance and Hope); and for the problem of rectification of public documents, Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v. Landmain Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 736; [2013] Ch 305, noted Paul S Davies, (2013) 129 LQR 24–27; M Barber and R Thomas, (2014) 77 MLR 597–618.

  59. 59.

    A Berg (2008) 124 LQR 6, 12–14.

  60. 60.

    ibid, at 14, citing an address given by this Australian judge in March 2007.

  61. 61.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 5.15.

  62. 62.

    [2013] UKSC 3; [2013] 1 WLR 366, at [19], per Lord Mance, citing the first instance judge; similarly, ibid, at [22] and [25].

  63. 63.

    [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] AC 1619, at [22].

  64. 64.

    [2011] UKSC 56; 2012 SC (UKSC) 240; 2012 SLT 205; 2012 SCLR 114.

  65. 65.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), 1–05, 3–09; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 5.60 ff.

  66. 66.

    G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 5.98 ff.

  67. 67.

    Chartbrook Ltd v. Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] 1 AC 1101; noted D McLaughlan (2010) 126 LQR 8–14.

  68. 68.

    As collected by Briggs J at first instance in Chartbrook Ltd v. Persimmon Homes Ltd [2007] EWHC 409 (Ch), at [23], drawing upon Lord Nicholls’ famous lecture, ‘My Kingdom for a Horse: the Meaning of Words’ (2005) 121 LQR 577; in his note on the House of Lords’ decision in the Chartbrook case, D McLaughlan (2010) 126 LQR 8, 9–11 rejects these various suggested justifications; see also G Yihan, ‘A Wrong Turn in History: Re-understanding the Exclusionary Rule Against Prior Negotiations in Contractual Interpretation’ [2014] JBL 360–387.

  69. 69.

    Chartbrook v. Persimmons [2008] EWCA Civ 183; [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 387, at [111], per Collins LJ; this argument is described as unconvincing by D McLaughlan (2010) 126 LQR 8, 11.

  70. 70.

    For expansion of the points made in this paragraph, Neil Andrews, Contract Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, 2015), 14.16, 14.41, 14.42.

  71. 71.

    [2010] UKSC 44; [2011] 1 AC 662; noted PS Davies [2011] CLJ 24–7 noting the artificial distinction between resort to negotiation evidence for discovery of background facts (allowed) and of the trend of negotiations (not allowed).

  72. 72.

    ibid, at [40].

  73. 73.

    For acute analysis of each of these exceptions, D McLaughlan, ‘Common Intention and Contract Interpretation’ [2013] LMCLQ 30–50.

  74. 74.

    On this two-pronged approach, G McMeel (2011) European Business L Rev 437–449, and R Buxton, ‘“Construction” and Rectification After Chartbrook’ [2010] CLJ 253 and AS Burrows, ‘Construction and Rectification’, in AS Burrows and E Peel (eds), Contract Terms (Oxford University Press, 2007), 88 ff.

  75. 75.

    E Clive, in H MacQueen and R Zimmermann (eds), European Contract Law: Scots and South African Perspectives (Edinburgh, 2006), chapter 7 at 183.

  76. 76.

    Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v. Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] QB 84, 120, CA, per Lord Denning MR.

  77. 77.

    [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] 1 AC 1101, at [45].

  78. 78.

    D McLaughlan (2010) 126 LQR 8, 12 (case note).

  79. 79.

    Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd v. James Miller & Partners Ltd [1970] AC 583, 603, HL, per Lord Reid.

  80. 80.

    K Lewison, Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), chapter 9; G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 17.

  81. 81.

    [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] 1 AC 1101; noted D McLaughlan (2010) 126 LQR 8–14.

  82. 82.

    Arden LJ in Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v. Landmain Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 736; [2013] Ch 305, at [63].

  83. 83.

    [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] 1 AC 1101, at [22] to [25].

  84. 84.

    ibid, at [24].

  85. 85.

    Chartbrook Ltd v. Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] AC 1101, at [25].

  86. 86.

    [2014] UKSC 2; [2015] AC 129, at [37].

  87. 87.

    ibid, at [39].

  88. 88.

    ‘“Construction” and Rectification after Chartbrook’ [2010] CLJ 253.

  89. 89.

    Lewison on The Interpretation of Contracts (6th edn, London, 2015), at 9.03 n 80.

  90. 90.

    [2001] EWCA Civ 1334; [2002] L & TR 103.

  91. 91.

    [2005] EWCA Civ 1579; [2006] 2 P & CR 2; [2006] L & TR 9; [2005] NPC 150.

  92. 92.

    [2007] EWCA Civ 363; [2007] Bus LR 1336.

  93. 93.

    [2009] UKHL 38; [2009] 1 AC 1101; noted D McLaughlan (2010) 126 LQR 8–14.

  94. 94.

    [2010] UKSC 47; [2011] 1 All ER 175; for observations on this case, Lord Grabiner, ‘The Iterative Process of Contractual Interpretation’ (2012) 128 LQR 41, 52–3.

  95. 95.

    [2010] EWCA Civ 1221; [2010] 2 CLC 705, at [132] to [140].

  96. 96.

    [2010] EWCA Civ 1429; [2011] 1 WLR 770.

  97. 97.

    [2014] EWCA Civ 1366; [2015] QB 366.

  98. 98.

    [2005] EWCA Civ 1579; [2006] 2 P & CR 2; [2006] L & TR 9; [2005] NPC 150.

  99. 99.

    [2010] EWCA Civ 1429; [2011] 1 WLR 770.

  100. 100.

    Caresse Navigation Ltd v. Office National de l’Electricité [2014] EWCA Civ 1366; [2015] QB 366.

  101. 101.

    The phrase adopted by Lewison LJ in Cherry Tree Investments Ltd v. Landmain Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 736; [2013] Ch 305, at [97] and also used in Arden LJ’s judgment.

  102. 102.

    [2011] EWCA Civ 707; [2011] 2 P & CR 12, at [39].

  103. 103.

    ibid, at [40].

  104. 104.

    [2015] UKSC 36; [2015] AC 1619, at [78].

  105. 105.

    [2011] EWCA Civ 353; [2012] 1 WLR 472 (but the court was able to achieve a favourable outcome for the bank by employing the doctrine of estoppel by convention to take account of post-formation dealings).

  106. 106.

    [2010] EWHC 3072 (QB); [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 497; 133 Con LR 112 (Richard Salter QC, Deputy).

  107. 107.

    ibid, at [94].

  108. 108.

    [2012] EWCA Civ 736; [2013] Ch 305, at [121].

  109. 109.

    ibid, at [117] ff (notably at [121]), noting Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002.

  110. 110.

    ibid, at [54] to [60]; here argument was rejected by Lewison LJ at [122].

  111. 111.

    D Hodge, Rectification: The Modern Law and Practice Governing Claims of Rectification (2nd edn, London, 2015); G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 17.

  112. 112.

    D Hodge, Rectification: The Modern Law and Practice Governing Claims for Rectification for Mistake (2nd edn, London, 2015).

  113. 113.

    e.g., nominations of pensions beneficiaries: Collins v. Jones and Jones 3 February 2000 The Times (Stanley Burnton QC); and for other unilateral instruments (such as leasehold notices or patents), see Marley v. Rawlings [2014] UKSC 2; [2015] AC 129, at [21], [22], [27], [77].

  114. 114.

    Smith v. Jones [1954] 1 WLR 1089, 1091–3, per Upjohn J; A Berg (2008) 124 LQR 6, 12.

  115. 115.

    Craddock Bros v. Hunt [1923] 2 Ch 136, 151, 154–5, 158–9, CA, per Lord Sterndale MR and Warrington LJ (Younger LJ dissenting).

  116. 116.

    ibid

  117. 117.

    See G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 17.93 Craddock Bros Ltd v. Hunt [1923] 2 Ch 136, 151–2, CA, per Lord Sterndale MR (citing Johnson v. Bragge [1901] 1 Ch 28, 37, per Cozens-Hardy J); and [1923] 2 Ch 136, 160, per Warrington LJ.

  118. 118.

    G McMeel, The Construction of Contracts: Interpretation, Implication and Rectification (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2011), 17.93.

  119. 119.

    Daventry District Council v. Daventry & District Housing Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1153; [2012] 1 WLR 1333, at [227]; noted Paul S Davies, ‘Rectifying the Course of Rectification’ (2012) MLR 412–426.

  120. 120.

    ibid, at [80].

  121. 121.

    Daventry case.

  122. 122.

    ibid, at [178].

  123. 123.

    ibid, at [213] to [225].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Cambridge, UK

    Neil Andrews

Authors
  1. Neil Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andrews, N. (2016). Interpretation of Written Contracts. In: Arbitration and Contract Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 54. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27144-6_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27144-6_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27142-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27144-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation