Once the terms that will be included in an agreement are determined, its meaning must be determined. Since the introduction of legislation governing unfair terms, the English courts have consolidated their general guiding principle that agreements are interpreted in such a way that they achieve the intentions of the parties from the point of view of a reasonable person. This changed considerably from the beginning of the 20th century, when English courts had fallen in love with a theory of literary interpretation, partly defended by Lord Halsbury.  When, in the middle of the twentieth century, fears about unfair terms and, in particular, exclusion terms were reversed, making strong use of the doctrine of counter-proferentem. Ambiguities contained in clauses that exclude or limit a party`s liability would be interpreted against the person relying on them. In the main case, Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v. R, the crown hangar burned down in the Port of Montreal and destroyed goods from Canada Steamship Lines. Lord Morton held that a clause in the contract limited the Crown`s liability for “damage”. Goods.
I did it. in the hangar in question” was not sufficient to exempt them from liability for negligence, since the clause could also be interpreted in such a way that it related to liability not attributable to fault under another contractual clause. It would exclude him instead. Some judges, in particular Lord Denning, wanted to go further and introduce a “fundamental breach” rule according to which liability for very serious offences cannot be excluded at all.  While the rules remain ready to be applied if the law may not help, such hostile approaches to interpretation  have generally been perceived as contrary to the clear meaning of language.  As a general rule, in the event of a contradiction between an explicit provision and a tacit provision, the explicit provision prevails. If the chain of events does not reveal an explicit agreement, if there is a contract, it must be drawn or implied – from the behavior of the parties: the explicit conditions, however, must not be the entire contract. Contract law works best when an agreement is respected and the appeal of the courts is never necessary, as each party knows its rights and obligations.
However, when an unforeseen event makes an agreement very difficult, if not impossible, the courts will generally interpret the parties in such a way that they have released themselves from their obligations. It is also possible that a party simply violates the contractual conditions. If, for the most part, a contract is not respected, the innocent party has the right to terminate his own performance and to claim damages in order to enable him to perform the contract. They are required to reduce their own losses and cannot claim damage that was a distant consequence of the infringement, but claims under English law are based on the principle that full reimbursement of all losses, whether pecuniary or not, must be compensated. . . .