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 dissenting opinion of Lord Gifford.
Lord Blackburn observed 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. That is only carrying out the will of the parties’
Lord Blackburn
(1878) 3 AC 552
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – A and J Inglis v Buttery and Co CA 1877
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 . .
Cited by:
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Evidence
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.374672
