Approaches to Interpretation of Contract: Contextualism and Textualism by an Emphasis on the Intent of the Parties

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD student in Private Law, Islamic Azad University, Tehran North Branch

2 Assistant professor, Department of Private Law, Islamic Azad University, Tehran North Branch

Abstract

One of the most important issues in contract law is the interpretation of contracts. The parties to the contract may have disagreements in the meaning of the terms and phrases of the contract. The disagreement in the contact faces an obstacle in the fulfilment of contractual obligations and the courts must interpret the contract in order to the settlement of disputes and fulfilment of contractual obligations. The most important purpose of interpretation is exploring the common intent of the parties. Textualists and contextualists both claim to discover the intent of the parties. Textualists take consider intention as the real and true intention of the parties and search for it in the context of the contract. In contrast, contextualists consider subjective intention to be the real and genuine will of the parties to the contract and consider the text of the contract as an incomplete resource regardless of the context in which the contract is formed. Exploring the real intention under the principle of freedom and principle of voluntarism is assumed as one of the most important values of legal systems in the field of contract law in this article. Therefore, the main criterion for evaluating each of these approaches is the ability to achieve the actual intention. The contextualism approach has more ability and accuracy in exploring the real intention of the parties by using extensive evidence. Although the textualism approach is consistent with the real intention of the parties in some cases, it is not very successful in exploring the real intent of the parties due to the limitation of the cited sources. It can be said in this research by relying on descriptive-analytical method and by evaluating the rules of each of these approaches that systems that consider contract as merely a tool to realize economic values in transactions are more inclined to textualism approach; in contrast, in systems in which the contract itself has intrinsic value and the realization of the parties’ intentions has relevance regardless of economic values are more likely to adopt a contextualism approach. Accordingly, in the author’s opinion, ending the unfinished textualism and contextualism struggle depends on examining the value priorities of a legal system in the field of contract law which has been neglected in the research of the last two decades.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. اصغری آقمشهدی، فخرالدین، و محمدحسین تقی‌پور درزی نقیبی، «مطالعه تطبیقی تأثیر عرف و عادت در تفسیر قرارداد در کنوانسیون بیع بین‌المللی کالا و حقوق ایران»، دوفصلنامه مطالعات حقوقی تطبیقی، سال هشتم، شماره 2، پاییز و زمستان 1396 ش.
  2. افضلی، عبدالواحد، مهدی شهابی، و محمدمهدی الشریف، «عبور از تفسیر قرارداد به تحول قرارداد؛ تأملی در اجتماعی شدن حقوق قراردادها»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، سال هفتم، شماره 27، تابستان 1398 ش.
  3. امامی، سیدحسن، حقوق مدنی، تهران، اسلامیه، 1389 ش.
  4. انصاری، مهدی، تحلیل اقتصادی حقوق قراردادها، تهران، جاودانه، جنگل، 1393 ش.
  5. حبیبی، محمود، تفسیر قراردادهای تجاری بین‌المللی، تهران، میزان، 1392 ش.
  6. داراب‌پور، مهراب، «تفسیر قراردادهای تجاری بین‌المللی و شروط مبهم آن»، فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، ضمیمه شماره 52، پاییز و زمستان 1389 ش.
  7. شعاریان، ابراهیم، و ابراهیم ترابی، حقوق تعهدات؛ مطالعه تطبیقی طرح اصلاحی حقوق تعهدات فرانسه با حقوق ایران و اسناد بین‌المللی، تهران، شهر دانش، 1393 ش.
  8. شهیدی، مهدی، حقوق مدنی؛ جلد دوم: اصول قراردادها و تعهدات، تهران، مجد، 1391 ش.
  9. شیری، مهرزاد، احمد باقری، و محمدعلی خورسندیان، «تعارض در قرارداد و کارایی قواعد اصولی در تفسیر آن»، دوفصلنامه مطالعات فقه و حقوق اسلامی، سال هفتم، شماره 12، بهار و تابستان 1394 ش.
  10. صاحبی، مهدی، تفسیر قراردادها در حقوق خصوصی، تهران، ققنوس، 1376 ش.
  11. طباطبائی، سیدمحمدصادق، و حمید آرایی، «مطالعه تطبیقی مفهوم ”اصل صحت“ در تفسیر قراردادها»، فصلنامه نامه مفید، سال هفدهم، شماره 88 (فصلنامه حقوق تطبیقی، جلد 7، شماره 2)، زمستان 1390 ش.
  12. علومی یزدی، حمیدرضا، و بابک بابازاده، «شیوه‌های تفسیر قرارداد در نظام حقوقی ایران و انگلستان»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی (پژوهش حقوق و سیاست سابق)، سال دوازدهم، شماره 29، تابستان 1389 ش.
  13. علوی، سیدمحمدتقی، و بابک بابازاده، «تفسیر قرارداد در نظام حقوقی کامن‌لا»، دوفصلنامه علامه، سال دهم، شماره 29، پاییز و زمستان 1389 ش.
  14. قشقایی، حسین، شیوه تفسیر قراردادهای خصوصی در حقوق ایران و نظام‌های حقوقی معاصر، قم، دفتر تبلیغات اسلامی، 1378 ش.
  15. کاتوزیان، ناصر، «تفسیر قرارداد»، مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران شماره 70، زمستان 1384 ش.
  16. کاتوزیان، ناصر ، حقوق مدنی؛ قواعد عمومی قراردادها (جلد سوم: آثار قرارداد)، تهران، شرکت سهامی انتشار، 1390ش.
  17. کرمی کلمتی، فرزاد، و رضاحسین گندمکار، «اصل حسن‌نیت و انصاف در تفسیر قراردادها در حقوق ایران و انگلستان»، فصلنامه پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی عدل و انصاف، سال چهارم، شماره 12، بهار 1400ش.
  18. مافی، همایون، و حسام کدیور، «جایگاه منطق در تفسیر قرارداد در داوری تجاری بین‌المللی»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 58، بهار و تابستان 1397 ش.
  19. محقق داماد، سیدمصطفی، جلیل قنواتی، سیدحسن وحدتی شبیری، و ابراهیم عبدی‌پور، حقوق قراردادها در فقه امامیه، تهران، سمت، 1390 ش.
  20. Ammann, Odile, Domestic Courts and the Interpretation of International Law: Methods and Reasoning Based on the Swiss Example, Leiden, Brill/Nijhoff, 2020.
  21. Bagchi, Aditi, “Risk-Averse Contract Interpretation,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 82(4), 2019, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3595849>.
  22. Barak, Aharon, Purposive Interpretation in Law, Princeton & Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2005.
  23. Barnes, Jeffrey, “Contextualism: 'The Modern Approach To Statutory Interpretation',” University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 41(4), 2018.
  24. Baude, William & Ryan D. Doerfler, “The (Not So) Plain Meaning Rule,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 84(2), 2017.
  25. Bayern, Shawn J., “Contract Meta-Interpretation,” University of California, Davis, Law Review, Vol. 49(3), 2016.
  26. Benoliel, Uri, “The Interpretation of Commercial Contracts: An Empirical Study,” Alabama Law Review, Vol. 69(2), 2017.
  27. Bix, Brian H., Contract Law: Rules, Theory, and Context (Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy and Law), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  28. Burton, Steven J., “A Lesson on Some Limits of Economic Analysis: Schwartz and Scott on Contract Interpretation,” Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 88(1), 2013.
  29. , Elements of contract interpretation, 1st Ed., New York, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  30. Catterwell, Ryan, A Unified Approach to Contract Interpretation, Oxford, Hart, 2020.
  31. Corbin, Arthur Linton, Corbin On Contracts, 8 Volums, St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing Company, 1960.
  32. Cunningham, Lawrence A., “Contract Interpretation 2.0: Not Winner-Take-All But Best-Tool-For-The-Job,” The George Washington Law Review, Vol. 85(6), 2018.
  33. Davies, Paul S., “Construing Commercial Contracts: No Need for Violence,” in: Michael Freeman & Fiona Smith (Eds.), Law and Language, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
  34. Epstein, David G. & Timothy Archer & Shalayne Davis, “Extrinsic Evidence, Parol Evidence, and the Parol Evidence Rule: A Call for Courts to Use the Reasoning of the Restatements Rather than the Rhetoric of Common Law,” New Mexico Law Review, Vol. 44(1), 2014.
  35. Fish, Stanley, “There is No Textualist Position,” San Diego Law Review, Vol. 42(2), 2005.
  36. Garner, Bryan A., Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th, St. Paul, Minnesota, West Publishing Company, 2009.
  37. Gilson, Ronald J. & Charles F. Sabel & Robert E. Scott, “Text and Context: Contract Interpretation as Contract Design,” Cornell Law Review, Vol. 100(1), 2014.
  38. Goldstein, Aaron D., “The Public Meaning Rule: Reconciling Meaning, Intent, and Contract Interpretation,” Santa Clara Law Review, Vol. 53(1), 2013.
  39. Hutchison, Andrew, “Chapter 18: Contractual interpretation: the South African blend of common, civil and indigenous law in comparative perspective,” in: Pier Giuseppe Monateri (Ed.), Comparative Contract Law, 1st , Massachusetts, Edward Elgar, 2017.
  40. Klass, Gregory, “Contracts, Constitutions, and Getting the Interpretation-Construction Distinction Right,” The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 18(1), 2020, <https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2146>.
  41. , “Contract Exposition and Formalism,” Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works, 2017, <https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1948>.
  42. , “Interpretation and Construction in Contract Law,” Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works, 2018, <https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1947>.
  43. Kostritsky, Juliet P., “Judicial Incorporation of Trade Usages: A Functional Solution to the Opportunism Problem,” Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 39(2), 2006, <https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/536>.
  44. Kraus, Jody S. & Robert E. Scott, “Contract Design and the Structure of Contractual Intent,” New York University Law Review, Vol. 84(4), 2009, <https://scholarship.law. columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/580>.
  45. Mahoney, Curtis J., “Treaties as Contracts: Textualism, Contract Theory, and the Interpretation of Treaties,” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 116(4), 2007.
  46. McLauchlan, David, “Contract Interpretation: What Is It About?,” Sydney Law Review, Vol. 31(1), 2009.
  47. Mitchell, Catherine, Interpretation of Contracts, 2nd , London & New York, Routledge, 2019.
  48. , “Interpreting Commercial Contracts: The Policing Role of Context in English Law,” in: Larry DiMatteo & Martin Hogg (Eds.), Comparative Contract Law: British and American Perspectives, 2015 (Published to Oxford Scholarship Online, January 2016).
  49. Murray, John E., Jr. & Timothy Murray, Corbin on Contracts Desk Edition, Massachusetts, Danvers, Matthew Bender & Company, 2017.
  50. Orsinger, Richard R., “The law of interpreting contracts,” Presented in the State Bar of Texas’ Advanced Civil Appellate Practice Course, Four Seasons Hotel, Austin, Texas, 2007.
  51. Peller, Gary, “The Metaphysics of American Law,” California Law Review, Vol. 73(4), 1985.
  52. Schwartz, Alan & Robert E. Scott, “Contract Interpretation Redux’, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 119(5), 2010, <https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/337>.
  53. , “Contract Theory and the Limits of Contract Law,” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 113(3), 2003.
  54. Silverstein, Joshua M., “Contract Interpretation Enforcement Costs: An Empirical Study of Textualism versus Contextualism Conducted via the West Key Number System,” Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 47(3), 2019.
  55. Smith, Peter J., “Textualism and Jurisdiction,” Columbia Law Review, 108(8), 2008.
  56. Yalim, Ayse Nihan Karadayi, Interpretation and Gap Filling in International Commercial Contracts, Cambridge, Intersentia, 2019.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics