The „plain text” rule has sometimes been applied to the interpretation of contracts, particularly in conjunction with the parol rule of proof. Such use is controversial. [11] This is sometimes called a rule of the clear and flexible sense, where the law is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of language, unless the result is cruel or absurd. See, for example, Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Even the most vocal proponents of textualism and the rule of simple meaning were prepared to convert the simple meaning „strict” into the simple meaning „soft” to some extent under certain circumstances; see, for example, United States v. X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (Scalia, J., distinguishing): Proponents of the plain language rule argue that it prevents courts from taking sides on legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sources.
„Simple rule of meaning.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/plain%20meaning%20rule. Retrieved 11 October 2022. The rule of simple meaning, also known as the literal rule, is one of the three rules of legal construction traditionally applied by English courts. [1] The other two are the „rule of mischief” and the „golden rule.” Some laws are intended for all citizens (e.g. criminal laws) and others are intended only for specialists (e.g. certain sections of tax legislation). A text that means one thing in a legal context could mean something different if it were in a technical manual or novel. Thus, the simple meaning of a legal text is something like the meaning understood by competent speakers of the natural language in which the text was written, who are in the intended readership of the text and understand that the text is a legal text of a certain type. [4] Opponents of the rule of ordinary meaning argue that the rule is based on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning. In fact, the words are imprecise, which leads judges to impose their own biases to determine the meaning of a law. However, since few things are proposed other than the alternative theory that limits discretion, the plain meaning survives. A principle used by courts in the interpretation of contracts, which provides that objective definitions of contract terms are authoritative whether or not the wording corresponds to the actual intention of one of the parties.
The rule of ordinary meaning is a type of legal interpretation according to which statutes must be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the law. This applies if there is no ambiguity in a will. In such a situation, the court should refuse to admit external evidence in order to invalidate the clear meaning of the will. The rule of plain meaning means that the law must be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of language, unless the result is cruel or absurd. The clear meaning rule requires that words have their ordinary meaning, that technical terms have their technical meaning, and that local cultural terms be recognized as applicable. In addition, the plain language rule prevents courts from taking sides on legislative or policy issues. The rule of plain meaning states that laws must be interpreted in the ordinary sense of the language of the law. In other words, a law must be read word for word and interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of language, unless a law explicitly defines some of its terms differently or the result is cruel or absurd. Ordinary words have their ordinary meaning, technical terms have their technical meaning, and local cultural terms are recognized as applicable.
The plain language rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides on legislative or policy issues. [2] Moreover, it is the mechanism underlying textualism and, to some extent, originalism. According to the rule of simple meaning, in the absence of a definition to the contrary in the law, words must have their clear, ordinary and literal meaning. If the words are clear, they must be applied, even if the intention of the legislator may have been different or if the result may be harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says, not what the law should say. The clear meaning of the contract is sought when the words used, whether written or oral, have a clear and unambiguous meaning. Words are given their ordinary meaning; Technical terms acquire their technical meaning; and local, cultural or commercial uses of the terms are recognized as accurate. The circumstances of the conclusion of the contract are also admissible as an aid to interpretation. In law, strictly literal interpretations of laws can lead to seemingly absurd results. The doctrine of absurdity holds that, in such cases, reasonable interpretations should be preferred to literal readings. Under the doctrine of absurdity, U.S. courts have interpreted laws contrary to their plain meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions.
[5] [6] [7] He is opposed to literalism. [8] For the avoidance of doubt, legislators often include „definition” sections in a statute that explicitly define the key terms used in that statute. [3] However, some statutes omit a definition section altogether or (most often) do not define a particular term. The plain meaning rule is intended to preside over the courts in disputes involving the meaning of a term not defined by law or that of a word found in a definition itself. An explanation of the rule was given in the Sussex Peerage case (1844; 11 Cl&Fin 85). „The only rule for the preparation of parliamentary bills is that they must be interpreted in accordance with the intention of the parliament that passed the law. If the wording of the Statute is in itself precise and unambiguous, it is sufficient to state them in this natural and ordinary sense.