Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1809331
 


 



Contractual Interpretation: A Comparative Perspective


James Spigelman


Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal

March 23, 2011

Australian Law Journal, Vol. 85, p. 412, 2011

Abstract:     
Over the last two to three decades there has been a paradigm shift in the interpretation of contracts from text to context. The purpose and surrounding circumstances of agreements are increasingly being considered for interpretation. This article charts the emergence of this approach in English jurisprudence, culminating in Lord Hoffmann’s restatement of the principles in the House of Lords. It surveys the way in which the movement from text to context has been dealt with in a number of jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand, England, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, India, China and the United States. This paper argues that the theoretical distinctions between common law and civil law contractual interpretation are not as significant in practice as they appear in theory. The paper undertakes a detailed comparative study on the current status of the parol evidence rule, the admissibility of evidence of surrounding circumstances, the treatment of evidence of pre-contractual negotiations and of subsequent conduct, the requirement that a written text be ambiguous before resort is had to extrinsic evidence, and the effect of entire agreement clauses on contractual interpretation. Further, it discusses the underused Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The paper argues that the general use of extrinsic materials risks undermining commercial certainty which, in turn, will result in an increase in the cost of commercial dispute resolution and reduce the reliance that third parties can place on a written document.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 78


Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: April 16, 2011 ; Last revised: November 7, 2011

Suggested Citation

Spigelman, James, Contractual Interpretation: A Comparative Perspective (March 23, 2011). Australian Law Journal, Vol. 85, p. 412, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1809331

Contact Information

James J. Spigelman (Contact Author)
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ( email )
Hong Kong
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,370
Downloads: 520
Download Rank: 38,877

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.203 seconds