And for an interesting contrast in approaches, see the High Court of Australia's refusal to grant leave to appeal from the appalling decision of the NSWCA in Jireh International Pty Ltd v Western Export Services Inc [2011] NSWCA 137: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/45.html



The traditional "plain meaning" approach is alive and well in Australia. The High Court has ruled that the NSWCA was correct when it held that a court must give effect to "unambiguous" language "unless to do so would give the contract an absurd operation". It is not enough that the contract has an uncommercial or unbusinesslike operation. An article discussing the NSWCA's decision and other recent developments in Australia will shortly appear in the Journal of Contract Law.



David




David McLauchlan
Professor of Law
Victoria University of Wellington
________________________________
From: Jason Neyers [jneyers@uwo.ca]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 6:52 AM
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: ODG: Contract Interpretation

Dear Colleagues:

Those interested in contractual interpretation will be interested in Rainy Sky S.A and others (Appellants) v Kookmin Bank (http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0127_Judgment.pdf)<http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0127_Judgment.pdf> which deals with the question (or so I am told) of whether when it comes to the interpretation of express terms one should use old fashioned literalism, contextualism, or common sense.

Happy Reading,
<http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0127_Judgment.pdf>

--
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435