The Court of Appeal declined to reverse the trial judge's decision, holding that contra proferentem was inapplicable where ambiguity can be resolved with reference to
the objective factual matrix, and further, that Talius's reliance on the subjective understanding of its representative did not assist in interpreting the contract:
Not exact matches
This does not offend the parol evidence rule because the goal of considering the
factual matrix is (at para 81) «to deepen the trial judge's understanding of the mutual and
objective intentions of the parties as expressed in the words of the contract.»
Without recourse to the without prejudice materials the court held that the agreement could not be properly construed in accordance with the well recognised principles identified in Investors Compensations Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 and Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38, [2009] AC 1101: principally, that
objective facts which emerge during negotiations are admissible as part of the
factual matrix in order to assist courts to interpret an agreement in accordance with the parties» true intentions.