"...why would any sympathy be required if it is not complicated? That sounds complicated."
It may be complicated for mere mortals such as ourselves, but I suspect much less so for the Lords who make long and lucrative careers from interpreting the 'natural' (literal) vs 'intended' (purposive) meaning of words in commercial contracts.
In the wise words of the 'The Hoffster':
"The fact that the words are capable of a literal application is no obstacle to evidence which demonstrates what a reasonable person with a knowledge of the background would have understood the parties to mean..."
Ultimately, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is...
(a) are the "two lines in the JOA" (Cath's words) sufficient to uphold COP's literal view, noting an interesting point made by another Lord - Lord Diplock - that:
"... if detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business commonsense, it must be made to yield to business commonsense."
OR
(b) does FAR - comprising a fair few reasonable people with a very deep knowledge of the 'background', which Hoffmann says "includes absolutely anything which would have affected the way in which the language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man [or woman!]" - possess conclusive, demonstrable evidence supporting what was originally understood or intended by all parties?
IMO FAR and their corhort of legal eagles are not to be underestimated. I believe they have dotted every 'i', crossed every 't' and have a swathe of chronologically-filed evidence (including all the antics!) for our three arbiters to pour through at their respective chambers.
Who will emerge victorious? Evidence, reasonableness and commonsense will decide.
gh.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
