If these principles are applied, it seems to me that the judge is right and that we are dealing with a poorly worded clause which, fortunately, is no longer used, my repetition of his reasons has little benefit. The only remark from him that I would respectfully question is when he said that he was “violence” about the natural meaning of words. This is an overly edible way of describing the process of interpretation. Many people, including politicians, celebrities and Ms. Malaprop, handle meanings and syntax, yet clearly communicate in a bearable way what they use words to mean. If someone does violence with natural meanings, it is rather her than her listeners. Gentlemen, I will immediately say that I prefer the scholarly judge`s approach. But I think I have to take into account a few general remarks about the principles under which contractual documents are interpreted today. I do not think that the fundamental change that has gone beyond this branch of the law, particularly following Lord Wilberforce`s speeches in Prenn v Simmonds  1 WLR 1381, 1384-1386 and Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen  1 WLR 989, is always sufficiently appreciated. The result was, subject to an important exception, to assimilate the way in which these documents are interpreted by judges, according to common sense principles, on the basis of which any serious expression would be interpreted in normal life.
Almost all the old intellectual baggage of the “legal” interpretation has been cleared. The principles can be summarized as follows: Lord Hoffmann has defined five principles, so that the contract must be interpreted as follows: investors have received negligent advice from their financial advisors, lawyers and real estate credit companies, including the West Bromwich Building Society (hereafter referred to as West Bromwich BS). They had rights to be charged and to violate the legal obligation. Investors had been encouraged by lenders to make home income plans, which meant mortgage their real estate to get money that they would put into equity-related bonds. They lost money when house prices and stocks fell. Under Section 54 of Financial Services 1986, the Securities and Investments Board launched the Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd in which investors could be compensated directly for their losses, and ICS would attempt to recover costs by suing the real estate credit companies on behalf of all. In order to obtain compensation, the investors signed a contract to transfer their debts to ICS. However, at point 3 (b) of the claim, the assignment is formed with the “Any claim you have or could have against the West Bromwich Building Society because of undue influence or otherwise) allows investors to bring an individual action against certain claims. While ICS Ltd filed a complaint, West Bromwich BS argued that “or otherwise” meant that claims and withdrawal claims had not been surrendered. ICS Ltd submitted that the clause effectively meant that claims had been surrendered because “or otherwise” related to requests for resignations other than undue influence, but not damages.
Find cheap pickup items-only in your area – they often attract fewer offers. West Bromwich Building Society has a pair of variable interest rates… Gentlemen, I will begin with the construction of Section 3 (b). Evans-Lombe J. followed his own decision in the former Cheltenham and Gloucester case, and I will summarize his reasoning first, and then leggatt L.J.`s reasoning before the Court of Appeal. Evans-Lombe J. focused on the words “any claim (whether by resigning for inappropriate influence or otherwise) that you have.