Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The courts have sometimes answered that question in the affirmative and sometimes in the
negative.
Logicsuggeststhatifthepartiestoacontracthavedeletedaclause,theyhavedonesobe-
cause they donotwishit toapply.Therefore, onemight think, the contract shouldbetreated
as though the clause was never there, with whatever consequences may flow from that as-
of Lords held that in construing (interpreting) a printed contract, a court is entitled to look
at deleted words as part of the surrounding circumstances, in light of which the court must
construe what has been left in. The clause in question allowed set-offagainst certified sums.
On that basis, the contracting parties must have directed their minds to the question of set-
off and decided that they should not be allowed.
Appeal decided that if a clause had been struck out it should be the same as if it had never
been included, and the court was not entitled to take account of the deleted words. In that
case, the contractor applied to have the retention money kept in a separate account, but the
relevantclausehadbeenstruckout.Thecourtsaidthatindealingwithacontractthathadno
provision for separating retention money into a designated bank account, they would order
it to be done as a matter of law relating to trust money.
contract is unambiguous, the deletion should be treated as if it had never been there at all. If
the contract is ambiguous, however, it is permitted to look at the deleted words if doing so
will shed light on the meaning of the other words. But any consideration of deleted words
must be done with care because the reason for the deletion cannot be known. Indeed, it may
have been a mistake.
