LAWS105 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Parol Evidence Rule, State Rail Authority, Collateral Contract
Document Summary
The basic rule: a contract is to be given the meaning intended by the parties. Constructions pty ltd v state rail authority of nsw): operation of the rule is explained in: gordon v macgregor. Position on considering the "surrounding facts" ("matrix of facts": codelfa constructions pty ltd v state rail authority of nsw - 1982 hca - evidence of surrounding circumstances should only be when there is ambiguity in the document. Ics v west bromwich [uk house of lords, 1988]: reference can always be made to surrounding circumstances: royal botanic gardens [aust hc, 2002] - australian courts should follow the decision in codelfa. New developments: western export services inc v jireh international p/l [2011 hca 45, electricity generation corporation v woodside energy ltd (2014) 251 clr 640, mount bruce mining pty ltd v wright prospecting pty ltd [2015] hca 37. State of victoria v tatts group ltd [2016] hca 5. Some aids courts use in interpreting a contract: ordinary meaning.
