Re-affirming of the plain meaning and centrality of the text

Question 1

Firm PI 1

Answer 1

Supreme court confirming ISC and Vector Gas.

Reaffirmation that the text remains centrally important.

There remains a presumption where words have ordinary meaning that meaning is deemed to be what the parties intended (but not a very strong presumption).

Where contractual language, viewed in the context of the whole contract, has an ordinary meaning, a conclusion that it produces commercially absurd result should be reached only in the most obvious and extreme of cases.

Question 2

Arnold v Briton

Answer 2

The clearer the plain meaning of the words, the harder it is for the court to depart from the contract.

Courts should not seek out ambiguity just because the contract seems unfair.

Question 3

2 cases in the Re-affirming of the plain meaning and centrality of the text

Answer 3

• Firm PI 1 v Zurich Insurance
• Arnold v Britton

Question 4

what was the status of Pn in Firm Pi 1

Answer 4

• deliberately didnt mention P issue as was engaging with plaining meaning and text more than they were context and commercial sense