CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACTS: THE AMBIGUITY GATEWAY AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW, PART 2

MAHA CHAAR

The crucial question of whether, or more accurately ‘to what extent’, evidence of surrounding circumstances is admissible to assist in the construction or interpretation of contracts is still a live issue.[1] [2]

First, it is necessary to examine what his Honour Justice Mason (with whom justices Stephen and Wilson agreed) said at page 352 in Codelfa:

The true rule is that evidence of surrounding circumstances is admissible to assist in the interpretation of the contract if the language is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning. But it is not admissible to contradict the language of the contract when it has a plain meaning.

This statement of the ‘true rule’ appears to raise two concepts:

The admissibility of evidence, and the use to which that evidence may be put.[3] Importantly, the ‘true rule’ appears at first instance to prohibit any use of evidence of surrounding circumstances, or extrinsic evidence, when construing contracts unless there is ambiguity in the language of the contract.

Codelfa also makes clear that there are at least two other purposes for which extrinsic evidence can be admitted. First, to identify the meaning of a descriptive term and second, to explain the genesis or aim of a transaction.[4] However, what is not clear from his Honour Justice Mason’s judgment is how those two admissibility purposes interact with the so-called ‘ambiguity gateway’, which in effect means that ambiguity is a gateway to the admission of extrinsic evidence.

In addition, Justice Mason approved the following statement of principle by Lord Wilberforce in Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tagen [1976] 3 All ER 570 at 574-576:

When one speaks of the intention of the parties to the contract, one is speaking objectively – the parties cannot themselves give direct evidence of what their intention was.. .Similarly when one is speaking of aim, or object, or commercial purpose, one is speaking objectively of what reasonable persons would have in mind in the situation of the parties.

It is evident from this statement that the parties’ subjective beliefs or understandings about their rights and liabilities that govern their contractual relations are not relevant or admissible. The court will be interested with what each party by words and conduct would have led a reasonable person in the position of the other party to believe. The parties’ common intention to a contract are to be regarded as referring to what a reasonable person would understand by the language in which the parties have expressed their agreement. The determination of the contractual terms must be carried out by reference to what a reasonable person would have understood them to mean. That process, ordinarily, would require consideration not only of the text, but also of the surrounding circumstances known to the parties, and the purpose and object of the transaction.

That objective restriction, together with the ‘true rule’, make it clear that Codelfa expressly prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence:

  1. To contradict the language of the contract when it has a plain meaning; or
  2. To establish the subjective intentions of the parties, even when shared by both parties,

but it can be used to establish the purpose and object of the transaction.

Having said that, Justice Mason does not expressly say that only where ambiguity is apparent may the court admit extrinsic evidence. In fact, courts have been prepared to admit extrinsic evidence to answer the preliminary question of whether ambiguity exists.[5] If ambiguity is found, then the evidence becomes admissible to assist the court in the interpretation of that ambiguous language. Whereas if the preliminary inquiry reveals that the language is plain, the extrinsic evidence is then inadmissible and cannot be relied on.

[1] (1982) 149 CLR 337.

[2] Robert McDougall, ‘Construction of Contracts: The High Court’s Approach’ (2016) 41 Australian Bar Review 103, 104.

[3] McDougall, above n 4, 104.

[4] McDougall, above n 4, 105.

[5] McCourt v Cranston [2012] WASCA 60 at [36] per Pulln and Newnes JJA; Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) NSWLR 603.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.