Law Commons^™

The Possibility Of Plain Meaning: Wittgenstein And The Contract Precedents, Val D. Ricks

Val D. Ricks

The fashion in American law schools is to teach that contractual language cannot have a plain meaning. Most of this teaching occurs when students study the “plain meaning rule.” This rule allows a judge, after finding unambiguous language (plain meaning) in a written contract, to refuse to look at other evidence of that language’s meaning. The rule is heavily criticized, but claims against it have been exaggerated. One of these exaggerated claims is that plain meaning is impossible. This claim is found in the caselaw opinions that students are made to read. It appears most clearly in Pacific Gas & …