“Commercial Common Sense” under English Contract Law

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 60, 311 - 342, 25.10.2024

Fatih Bugra Erdem

https://doi.org/10.54049/taad.1572925

Öz

The principles on how commercial contracts should be interpreted have long been a subject of debate in English contract law. In recent years, the concept of “commercial (business) common sense” has emerged as an interpretation tool that balances the unwavering adherence to the language used in the contract has been replaced by commercial prudence, which means the preference for the commercially sensible construction in the interpretation of contracts. Since the wording is interpreted as a reasonable commercial person (a prudent businessperson) would interpret them, and this person does not want an overemphasis on technical interpretations and subtleties of language. This paper examines how commercial prudence, which guides the discovery of the true meaning and purpose of the contract from the perspective of a prudent businessman, is applied in English commercial law and the legal debates that this approach brings. In this study, the importance given to commercial common sense in contract interpretation has changed in various time periods, and the possible approaches in future decisions are discussed through important reference decisions, such as Investors Compensation Scheme (ICS) Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society, Arnold v Britton and Wood v Capita.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Commercial common sense, Duty to Act as a Prudent Businessman, Commercial Contracts, English Contract law, Contract Interpretation

Etik Beyan

This article is not subject to Ethics Committee permission

İNGİLİZ SÖZLEŞMELER HUKUKUNDA “TİCARİ SAĞDUYU”

Öz

Ticari sözleşmelerin hangi ilkeler ışığında yorumlanması gerektiği İngiliz sözleşmeler hukukunda uzun zamandır devam eden bir tartışma konusudur. Son yıllarda sözleşmelerin yorumlanmasında sözleşmede kullanılan dile atfedilen sarsılmaz bağlılık yerini ticari açıdan mantıklı sonuç doğuracak yapının tercih edilmesi anlamına gelen ticari sağduyuya bırakmıştır. Çünkü sözleşmelerde kullanılan ifadeler, makul bir ticari kişinin (basiretli bir iş adamının) onları yorumlayacağı şekilde yorumlanır. Makul bir ticari kişinin beklentisi ise sözleşmenin başka anlamlar çağrıştırmaması adına teknik yorumlara ve dilin inceliklerine aşırı vurgu yapılmaması olacaktır. Çalışmanın konusu, basiretli bir iş adamının bakış açısıyla sözleşmenin gerçek anlamı ve amacını ortaya koymaya rehberlik eden ticari sağduyunun İngiliz ticaret hukukunda nasıl şekillendiğinin ve bu yaklaşımı destekleyen/eleştiren hukuki argümanların incelenmesidir. Bu çalışmada sözleşme yorumunda ticari sağduyuya verilen önemin çeşitli zaman dilimlerinde değişiklik gösterdiği Investors Compensation Scheme (ICS) Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society, Arnold v Britton ve Wood v Capita gibi önemli referans kararlar üzerinden tartışılmakta ve bundan sonrasında verilebilecek kararlardaki muhtemel yaklaşımlar değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ticari Sağduyu, Basiretli Bir İş Adamı Gibi Hareket Etme Yükümlülüğü, Ticari Sözleşmeler, İngiliz Sözleşmeler Hukuku, Sözleşme Yorumu

Etik Beyan

Bu makale Etik Kurul iznine tabi değildir

Kaynakça

• Amhurst N, Terræ-filius: or, the secret history of the University of Oxford: In Several Essays (Hart-Hall 2010)
• Anderson M, Warner V, Drafting and Negotiating Commercial Contracts (Bloomsbury 2023)
• Andrews N, ‘Interpretation of Contracts and “Commercial Common Sense”: Do Not Overplay This Useful Criterion’ (2017) 76(1) The Cambridge Law Journal, 36-62
• Atiyah PS, The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Clarendon 1979)
• Bale H, Chitty on Contracts (Sweet & Maxwell 2007)
• Bayern S, ‘The Nature and Timing of Contract Formation’: DiMatteo L, Hogg M (eds), Comparative Contract Law: British and American Perspectives (Oxford University Press 2015) 77-89
• Bingham L, ‘A New Thing Under the Sun? The Interpretation of Contract and the ICS Decision’ (2008) 12 Edinburgh Law Review 374-390
• Buxton R, ‘”Construction” and Rectification After Chartbrook’ (2010) 69(2) Cambridge Law Journal 253-262
• Calnan R, Principles of Contractual Interpretation (Oxford University Press 2013)
• Catterwell R, ‘Striking a Balance in Contract Interpretation: The Primacy of the Text’ (2019) 23 Edinburgh Law Review 52-7.
• Charny D, ‘Hypothetical Bargains: The Normative Structure of Contract Interpretation’ (1991) 89 Michigan Law Review 1815-1879
• Connal R, ‘Has the Rainy Sky Dried Up? Arnold v Britton and Commercial Interpretation’ (2016) 20 Edinburgh Law Review 71-76
• Davies P, ‘The Meaning of Commercial Contracts’: Davies P, Pila J (eds), The Jurisprudence of Lord Hoffman (Hart Publishing 2015) 215-240
• Davies P, ‘Rectification versus Interpretation: The Nature and Scope of the Equitable Jurisdiction’ (2016) 75(1) The Cambridge Law Journal 62-85
• Davies P, ‘Excluding Good Faith and Restricting Discretion’: Davies P, Raczynska M, Contents of Commercial Contracts: Terms Affecting Freedoms (Hart 2020) 89-112
• Duncan S, ‘Oxwich Park: stepping back from the brink – contractual interpretation after Arnold v Britton’ (2015) 101 Amicus Curiae 9-11
• Grabiner L, ‘The Iterative Process of Contractual Interpretation’ (2012) 128 Law Quarterly Review 41-46
• Goff R, ‘Commercial Contracts and the Commercial Court’ (1984) Llyod’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 382-391
• Gray A, ‘Relational contract theory, the relevance of actual performance in contractual interpretation and its application to employment contracts in the United Kingdom and Australia’ (2023) 52(3) Common Law World Review 61-100
• Havelock R, ‘Return to Tradition in Contractual Interpretation’ (2016) 27(2) Kings Law Journal 188-213
• Havelock R, ‘The Unitary Exercise of Contractual Interpretation’ (2017) 76(3) The Cambridge Law Journal 486-489
• Hjalmarsson J, Maritime Law in 2021: a Review of Developments in Case Law (Informa 2022)
• Holmes OW, ‘The Theory of Legal Interpretation’ (1899) 12(6) Harvard Law Review 417-420
• Kramer A, ‘Common Sense Principles of Contract Interpretation (and how we’he been using them all along)’ (2003) 23(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 173-196
• Kramer A, ‘Implication in Fact as an Instance of Contractual Interpretation’ (2004) 63(2) Cambridge Law Journal 384-411
• Lewison K, The Interpretation of Contracts (Sweet & Maxwell 2023)
• Lim E, ‘Commercial Purpose and Business Common Sense in Contractual Interpretation’ (2012) 23(1) King’s Law Journal 99-100
• Macgregor L, ‘Crossing the Line between Business Common Sense and Perceived Fairness in Contractual Interpretation’ (2015) 19(3) Edinburgh Law Review 378-383
• Marsich R, ‘Commercial Common Sense in Contractual Interpretation: Observations on the Court of Appeal in Technix v Fitzroy and the Malthouse v Rangarita’ (2021) 52(3) Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 541-562
• Mason L, ‘The Role of ‘Business Common Sense’ in the Construction of Commercial Contracts’ (2012) 33(2) Business Law Review 32-33
• Mathew J, ‘Are we exceedingly reliant on common sense?’ (2015) 11 Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law 704B
• McCunn J, ‘Belize it or not: implied terms in Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas’ (2016) 79(6) Modern Law Review 1090-1101
• McCunn J, ‘The Contra Proferentem Rule: Contract Law’s Great Survivor’ (2019) 39(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 483-506
• Moore M, ‘Commercial Common Sense in Contract Interpretation: A Legal Realist Analysis’ (2024) 14 UCL Research Paper Series.
• Moore MT, Corporate Governance in the Shadow of the State (Hart 2013)
• Moore MT, ‘Private Ordering and Public Policy: The Paradoxical Foundations of Corporate Contractarianism’ (2014) 34 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 693-714
• Morgan J, Contract Law Minimalism: A Formalist Restatement of Commercial Contract Law (Cambridge University Press 2013)
• Peden E, ‘Policy concerns behind implication of terms in law’ (2001) 117 Law Quarterly Review 459-481
• Poole J, Textbook on Contract Law (Oxford University Press 2016)
• Richardson L, ‘Commercial Common Sense in Contractual Interpretation: Further views from the Inner House’ (2017) 21(3) Edinburgh Law Review 423-429
• Robertson S, ‘Making Sense of Commercial Common Sense’ (2018) 49 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 279-296
• Staughton C, ‘How Do Courts Interpret Commercial Contracts?’ (1999) 58(2) The Cambridge Law Journal 303-313
• Tan YL, ‘Construction of Commercial Contracts and Parol Evidence’ (2009) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 301-331
• Trigonis K, ‘Arnold v Britton [2015]: An Odyssey of Commercial Interpretation’ (2021) 6(1) Kent Law Review 5-6
• Antaios Compania Navera SA v. Salen Rederierna SA (‘The Antaios) [1985] AC 191.
• Ardmair Bay Holdings Limited v James Douglas Craig [2019] CSOH 58
• Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] AC 1619, 20.
• Ashtead Plant Hire Company Limited v Granton Central Developments Limited [2020] CSIH 2 CA 40/18.
• ASSIA v BT [2023] EWCA Civ 451.
• Attorney-General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10, [2009] 1 WLR 1988.
• Baker Tilly v Makar [2010] EWCA Civ 1411.
• Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd [1990] Q.B. 818, 870, C.A
• Barton v Gwyn-Jones [2023] AC 684 (Supreme Court) 702.
• BS&N Ltd (BVI) v Micado Shipping Ltd (Malta) (“The Seaflower”) [2001] C.L.C. 421.
• BMA Special Opportunity Hub Fund Ltd & Ors v African Minerals Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 416.
• Cantor Fitzgerald v Yes Bank [2024] EWCA Civ 695.
• Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38, [2009] AC 1101.
• Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v bmibaby Ltd [2009] EWCH 852 (Ch).
• Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) SARL v Ramblas Investments BV [2016] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 368.
• Firm PI 1 Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2014] NZSC 147, [2015] 1 NZLR 432.
• Flanagan v Liontrust Investment Partners LLP [2015] EWHC 2171 (Ch).
• Globe Motors Inc v TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 396.
• Glynn v Margetson [1893] A.C. 351, 356, H.L.
• Granville Oil & Chemicals Ltd v Davies Turner & Co Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 570.
• Hartog v Collin Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566.
• HIH Casuality & General Insurance Ltd v New Hampshire Co. [2001] EWCA Civ 735, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 161.
• Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Ltd [2004] 1 AC 715.
• Hut Group Ltd v Nobahar-Cookson [2016] EWCA Civ 128.
• Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 (HL)
• Jackson v Dear [2012] EWHC 2060 (Ch) 40.
• Jacobs v Scott & Co [1899] 2 F (HL) 70.
• James Miller & Partners Ltd v Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 269.
• Jumbo King Ltd v Faithful Properties Ltd [1999] HKCFA 38; [1999] 2 H.K.C.F.A.R. 279.
• KPMG LLP v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 363, [2007] Bus LR 1336.
• Mannai Investment Co v Eagle Star Life Assurance [1997] A.C. 749, 771, H.L.
• Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co. (Jersey) [2015] UKSC 72, [2015] WLR 1843.
• Mears v Safecar Security Ltd [1983] QB 54.
• Miramar Maritime Corp v Holborn Oil Trading Ltd [1984] A.C. 676, 682, H.L.
• Monsolar IQ Ltd v Wooden Park Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 961.
• Mopani Copper Mines plc v Millennium Underwriting Ltd [2008] 1 CLC 992.
• Narandas-Girdhar & Anor v Bradstock [2016] EWCA Civ 88.
• National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v NCB Staff Association (Jamaica) [2024] UKPC 2
• Nord Naphtha Limited v New Stream Trading AG [2021] EWCA Civ 1829 [2022] Lloyd’s Rep Plus 18.
• O’Grady v B15 Group Limited [2022] EWHC 67 (QB).
• Photo Production Ltd V Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827.
• Pink Floyd Music Ltd v EMI Records Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1429.
• Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 WLR 1381.
• Procter & Gamble Co. v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA [2012] EWCA Civ 1413.
• Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, [2011] 1 WLR 2900.
• Re Golden Key [2009] EWCA Civ 636.
• Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 W.L.R. 989, 995-6, H.L.
• Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 36.
• Sara & Hossein v Blacks [2023] UKSC 2.
• Skanska Rasleigh Weatherfoil Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2007] C.I.L.L. 2449.
• S&T (UK) Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2448.
• Swansea Stadium Management Company Ltd v. City & County of Swansea and Interserve Construction Ltd [2018] EWHC 2192.
• Tartsinis v Navona Management Co [2015] EWHC 57 (Comm), 54.
• Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2015] 2 All E.R. 15.
• Torre Asset Funding Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWCH 2670 (Ch), (2013) 157(35) SJLB 31.
• Transocean Drilling UK Limited v Providence Resources PLC [2016] EWCA Civ 372.
• Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24, [2017] AC 1173.