EN
TR
Lord Sumption, speaking extra-judicially,(194) criticises the approach taken in Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Soci
“The language of the parties’ agreement, read as a whole, is the only direct evidence of their intentions which is admissible. [...] If we abandon [language] as the basic tool of construction, we are no longer discovering how the parties understood each other. We are simply leaving judges to reconstruct an ideal contract which the parties might have been wiser to make, but never actually did.”(196)…
Lord Sumption also critiqued Lord Hoffmann’s broad application of the ‘matrix of…
“It is I think time to reassert the primacy of language in the interpretation of contracts. [...] The parties are the masters of their own agreement, and anything which marginalises the role of words in the process of construction is a direct assault on their autonomy.”(197)…
Lord Hoffmann responded in an article, rejecting Lord Sumption’s assertion that words…
“Lord Sumption believes that words used in a speech act have an ‘autonomous meaning’. But this is a fallacy. Words have conventional meanings, but you can only understand what they were used to mean if you know the context in which (i.e. background against which) they were used.”(198)…
Lord Hoffmann argues that contracts must be understood in a way that aligns with…
The law on contractual interpretation may seem settled for now with the UK Supreme…
