In order to clarify the definition of the interpretation of the contract beyond the «normal» meaning of words, Lord Hoffman established in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd/West Bromwich Building Society  1 W.L.R. 896, 912, that an objective test should be applied. When there is a dispute over what a contract means, there are no easy answers. A detailed analysis of the overall contract is required. In many cases, this is likely to resolve inconsistencies or ambiguities. However, if this is not the case, further consideration of the contractual documents and the intent of the parties is required. Since these exercises can be so difficult (and therefore costly), disputes on interpretation points should be avoided as much as possible. If this is unavoidable, seeking legal advice should be a priority. Only at this point — a contract cannot be rewritten just to get a result close to the company.
However, if there is more than one interpretation, it is likely that the court will implement the purpose of the tribunal, which is considered to be the commercial purpose of the agreement. The Court found that «the actual circumstances … contract law and, as a general rule, no permissible interpretation guide. In particular, the guys. B of contracts, for example, employment, consumption, landlords and tenant contracts, are standard conditions defined by law and/or by all. In appropriate cases, the Tribunal recognizes the common practice in certain professions or industrial sectors and is prepared to include in an agreement that takes this practice into account, provided that the text of the contract is not incompatible with the implication. Finally, if it can be shown that the parties have dealt consistently and clearly on a given basis, the Tribunal may be willing to include conditions that reflect it, even if the actual wording of the treaty does not conflict with it. The context relevant to the interpretation of the treaty has therefore been further defined. However, in the event of uncertainty, it is rare for the words of a treaty to be clear and unambiguous, even if they have their «normal» meaning. As a result, the courts had to consider the best way to examine the interpretation of the contract. In recent years, the general trend has shifted from an overly literal approach to treaty interpretation to what is known as a «specific» approach to a «specific» approach. The English court sometimes uses certain «construction cannons» or «thumb rules» to bring justice between the parties.
However, these principles are merely indications and the Tribunal will only apply them if it is not possible to find their meaning on the basis of the general rules of interpretation described above. The court first attempts to find the ordinary meaning of the words, as they are commonly understood, but if the context clearly requires a particular or particular interpretation, the court will accept that particular meaning. Technical or scientific words generally have their technical or scientific significance, unless the context indicates something else.8 If, given the explicit terms of the agreement, it is still not possible to determine its meaning, the court may be willing to include certain terms.20 Courts are reluctant to depart from their explicit wording, especially when the contract is detailed and appears complete.