Law Commons^™

Contract Meta-Interpretation, Shawn J. Bayern

Scholarly Publications

This Article provides a general framework for resolving the contract law’s ambivalence between textualism and contextualism, one of the most difficult questions in modern contract interpretation. Simply put, the Article’s argument is that courts need to determine the parties’ preferences as to how their contracts should be interpreted; this “meta-interpretive” inquiry can then direct the court’s interpretation or construction of the parties’ substantive rights and duties. Moreover, the Article argues that while contextualist interpretation is not, and should not be, mandatory for all interpretive questions under contract law, contextualism is necessary to resolve the initial “meta-interpretive” question: What interpretive regime …

Supertext And Consistent Meaning, Steve R. Johnson

Scholarly Publications

Opponents of textualism as an approach to statutory interpretation sometimes deride it as myopic. The textualist, those opponents contend, puts on blinders, narrowing the perhaps vast panorama of possible perspectives on meaning to a narrow slice of the whole. Modern textualists beg to differ. They view that criticism as reductionist and are often quick to distinguish textualism from mere literalism. Thus, the leading contemporary textualist jurist – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia – cautions:

Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism, a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute .... [T]he good textualist …

---

Go to article