Surrounding circumstances are not admissible for any purpose of finding out which words the parties intended to use rather than did use in their contract. Lord Justice Clerk Moncreiff said that in all mercantile contracts ‘whether they be clear and distinct or the reverse, the Court is entitled to be placed in the position in which the parties stood before they signed.’
Lord Gifford (dissenting) said: ‘Now, I think it is quite fixed – and no more wholesome or salutary rule relative to written contracts can be devised – that where parties agree to embody, and do actually embody, their contract in a formal written deed, then in determining what the contract really was and really meant, a Court must look to the formal deed and to that deed alone. This is only carrying out the will of the parties. The only meaning of adjusting a formal contract is, that the formal contract shall supersede all loose and preliminary negotiations – that there shall be no room for misunderstandings which may often arise, and which do constantly arise, in the course of long, and it may be desultory conversations, or in the course of correspondence or negotiations during which the parties are often widely at issue as to what they will insist on and what they will concede. The very purpose of a formal contract is to put an end to the disputes which would inevitably arise if the matter were left upon verbal negotiations or upon mixed communings partly consisting of letters and partly of conversations. The written contract is that which is to be appealed to by both parties, however different it may be from their previous demands or stipulations, whether contained in letters or in verbal conversation. There can be no doubt that this is the general rule, and I think the general rule, strictly and with peculiar appropriateness applies to the present case.’
Lord Justice Clerk Moncreiff
(1877) 5 R 58
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – A and J Inglis v Buttery and Co HL 1878
The presumption is that a contract document expresses all the terms in the contract with the effect that the court will only look to the document ‘in determining what the contract really was and what it really meant. Lord Blackburn preferred the . .
Cited – Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.374671
