Publication Type
Journal Article
Version
publishedVersion
Publication Date
2014
Abstract
A reason justifying the exclusionary rule against prior negotiations in the interpretation of contracts is its longevity. Yet, the authorities commonly cited in support of the exclusionary rule are mostly traceable to Lord Wilberforce’s speech in the relatively recent case of Prenn v Simmonds. This article suggests that the law took a wrong turn in that case and caused later courts to support the exclusionary rule by recourse to policy-oriented justifications, instead of principle-based ones. The emphasis on policy-oriented justifications, and the recantation of Prenn v Simmonds as reason enough for the exclusionary rule, support an independent rule against prior negotiations that was never meant to be.The consequence is the judicial (and academic) acknowledgement of the exclusionary rule’s uncertain boundaries, and the simultaneous maintenance of its legitimacy.
Keywords
Contract terms, Contractual negotiations, Exclusionary rule, Interpretation
Discipline
Asian Studies | Commercial Law | Contracts
Publication
Journal of Business Law
Volume
[2014]
First Page
360
Last Page
387
ISSN
0021-9460
Publisher
Sweet and Maxwell
Citation
GOH, Yihan.
A Wrong Turn in History: Re-understanding the Exclusionary Rule Against Prior Negotiations in Contractual Interpretation. (2014). Journal of Business Law. [2014], 360-387.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1362
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Included in
Asian Studies Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Contracts Commons