خلاصة:
In most legal systems,interpretation is performed with the aim of determining the common will and intention of the parties.Sometimes,the contract texts contain vague,insufficient,defective,or contradictory elements that make it difficult to reveal the common intention of the parties,and may even lead to interpretations in clear contrast with the parties’common intention.At times,the circumstances governing the execution of a contract change to a degree that it is not possible to see the contract as the true interpretation of the intention of the parties.Hermeneutic interpretation methods revolve around three elements:the text,the author,and the interpreter.Among hermeneutic interpretation approaches,the hermeneutic circle is in greater harmony with major theories in the modern contract law and the contract law in Iran.interpreter considers all the mental elements and presuppositions of the parties when the text is prepared,and recreates the contract using implied terms,and accepted customs of the parties.This interpretation method is more flexible than traditional methods,thus achieving greater harmony with justice and fairness criteria by putting contractual relations under the government of the criteria of the actual will.this research sought to examine the methods of interpretation common in hermeneutics,enumerate the strengths and weaknesses of each,delve into major theories in the modern contract law such as neoformalism and convention-based interpretations,and finally develop a balanced method free of extremism according to current circumstances and the principles of the modern contract law
ملخص الجهاز:
For example, in America, pursuant to certain regulations such as Section 302-2 of the United States Uniform Act—which was previously mentioned—judges were allowed to deviate from a purely textual method in interpreting texts and, in this way, by deviating from the literal language of the contract, seek the actual intention of the parties; therefore, the contract text is not the sole reference for discovering the common intention, but rather the dispute resolution authority must also consider other contractual relations and, by taking such a relationship into account, evaluate the realities related to the contract to determine to what extent the subjects and realities related to the contract have been agreed upon by the parties and, based on that, impose legal results and effects on the terms and phrases of the contract (Burrows and Edvin, 2007:217).
In this case, the court, by centering on the author rather than just the text, undertook the interpretation of the contract and believed that by deviating from the literal meaning of the contract language and considering other elements, the common intention of the parties could be reached.
In this new theory, just like author-centered interpretations, although the interpreter seeks to discover the common intention of the parties and considers extra-textual elements in this process, it is only to the extent that it does not conflict with the text; in which case, the meaning inferred from the text will have priority.
(
, 
, 
)
