Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Rules and their reasons.

Rules and their reasons.

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:13 pm

An organisation has a set of rules to which its members must agree to abide by. In some instances, the reason for the rule is set out in the documents.
If the rule were put to question, to what extent, if at all would a court consider the reasons in the interpretation of the rule?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10017
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Rules and their reasons.

Postby Millbrook2 » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:22 pm

If it would help to interpret the meaning of the rule then it could be appropriate to do so.
Millbrook2
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Rules and their reasons.

Postby atticus » Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:52 pm

But if the meaning of the words of the contract is clear, the court will not accept extraneous evidence (that is evidence outside the contract of the meaning of the contract).
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Rules and their reasons.

Postby atticus » Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:50 pm

dls - do you remember the big HL case on extraneous evidence etc in contracts, about 10 years ago? Lead judgment by Lord Hoffmann. I think one of the parties was one of the big housebuilders.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Rules and their reasons.

Postby atticus » Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:54 pm

The name came to me, Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes
http://swarb.co.uk/chartbrook-ltd-v-per ... -2009/amp/
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Rules and their reasons.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:00 pm

quote="atticus"]The name came to me, Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes
http://swarb.co.uk/chartbrook-ltd-v-per ... -2009/amp/[/quote]
Thanks Atti'. I think I've seen that before: it looks familiar.

‘what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean.’


Seems to be the relevant phrase that leaps out at me.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10017
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.


Return to Contract and Consumer Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest