“As recently discussed, contract interpretation is, relatively, easy when the words are very clear. But once a potential ambiguity is identified, it becomes necessary to look at what makes commercial sense, as well as what has been described as the factual background, or the ‘matrix of fact’ referred to in Prenn v Simmonds. More recently, this was described as ‘the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract’ (Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank). Identifying the knowledge reasonably available to the parties seems easier than identifying what makes commercial sense, which I looked at in February …” (more)
[Shy Jackson, Construction Blog, 20 April]
First posted 2021-04-21 08:00:59
Leave a Reply