Walker v Giles: 1848

The court sought to reconcile conflicting parts of a deed.
Wilde CJ said: ‘And as the different parts of the deed are inconsistent with each other, the question is, to which part effect ought to be given. There is no doubt, that, applying the approved rules of construction to this instrument, effect ought to be given to that part which is calculated to carry into effect the real intention, and that part which would defeat it should be rejected.’


Wilde CJ


(1848) 6 CB 662, [1848] EngR 20, (1848) 136 ER 1407




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTaylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2004
The claimant music producer and songwriter had entered into a publishers agreement with the defendant, agreeing to work for it. He now sought to be free to work for another company. The factual background was unclear, and the contract documentation . .
CitedArnold v Britton and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
Absurdity did not defeat a clear clause
A standard lease of plots on a caravan park, contained a provision which appeared to increase the rent by 10% in each year. The tenants argued that such a substantial increase could not have been intended.
Held: The tenants’ appeal failed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.211394