After the application of Proviso (6) to S. 92, the adjudicating authority must be very careful when it applies provisions dealing with patent ambiguity, as it must first ascertain whether the plain language of a particular document applies accurately to existing facts
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 92 Proviso (6) r/w Ill. (f) and Ss. 94 and 95 — Entirety of correspondence, as opposed to a single/some correspondence(s): When there are a number of documents exchanged between the parties in the performance of a contract, all of them must be read as a connected whole, relating each particular document to “existing facts”, which include how particular words are used in a particular sense, given the entirety of correspondence between the parties. Further, after the application of Proviso (6) to S. 92, the adjudicating authority must be very careful when it applies provisions dealing with patent ambiguity, as it must first ascertain whether the plain language of a particular document applies accurately to existing facts. If, however, it is ambiguous or unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may then be given to show that the words used in a particular document were used in a sense that would make the aforesaid words meaningful in the context of the entirety of the correspondence between the parties.
[Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd.
Comments
Post a Comment