The consensus principle and the interpretation of construction contracts by the courts

David Lewis

May 2003

A paper based on the commended entry in the Hudson Prize Competition
2002

The author comments that judges sometimes reach unexpected decisions,
declaring the law to be different from what most lawyers, and their
clients, previously thought it to be. He looks in particular at three
Court of
Appeal decisions handed down within a six-month period in 1994: Trafalgar
House v General Surety and Guarantee, Perar v General Surety and Guarantee
and Crown Estate v Mowlem. The purpose of the paper, David Lewis explains,
is to encourage judges to adhere to current consensus by proposing
sound legal reasons why they should do so, and to suggest how judges
might
depart from a legally unsound consensus in a way which protects the
parities to existing contracts.

Trafalgar House and the temporary demise of the conditional bond -
Perar and the innocent insolvent - Crown Estate and the excessively
final certificate
- The hazards of construction - Canons of construction - esolving
the paradox.

The author: David Lewis is a practising solicitor and the principal
of Lawbuild, solicitors, London.

Text 11 pages.
PDF file size: 82k