The Contra Proferentem Rule IV

“The Common Law rule of construction “verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem” means that ambiguity in the wording of a policy is to be resolved against the party who prepared it. MacGillivray on Insurance Law [9th ed., 1997] deals with the rule of Contra Proferentem as follows: “The Contra Proferentem rule of construction arises only […]

Read more "The Contra Proferentem Rule IV"

The Proviso

 “It needs no special emphasis to mention that provisos can serve various purposes. The normal function is to qualify something enacted therein but for the said proviso would fall within the purview of the enactment. It is in the nature of exception. Hidayatullah, J. had observed that a proviso is generally added to an enactment […]

Read more "The Proviso"

Casus Omissus

Though the rule of casus omissus i.e. “what has not been provided for in the statute cannot be supplied by the Courts” is a strict rule of interpretation there are certain well known exceptions thereto. The following opinion of Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, (1949) 2 All ER 155 may be […]

Read more "Casus Omissus"

The Contra Proferentem Rule III

“The Contra Proferentem rule is a principle of last resort.” – North v. Marina, [2003] NSWSC 64. _____ In Fruit Juice Stalls, [Civil Appeal Nos. 618-620 of 2016] Senior Advocate Raju Ramchandran has quoted K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313 to elaborate upon the Contra Proferentem rule. The rule is a “a late‐inning tiebreaker, one used when […]

Read more "The Contra Proferentem Rule III"