According to Justice Rothstein's ruling inSattva Capital v Creston Moly, why is contractual interpretation always a matter of 'mixed fact and law', never 'pure law'? What, on Rothstein J's account, are the 'surrounding circumstances' that inform the interpretation of a contract? Why, according to Justice Cromwell's ruling inTercon Contractors Ltd v British Columbia, is the exclusion clause in the request for proposals limited only to the six eligible bidders? How, according to Justice Rowe's decision inCorner Brook (City) v Bailey, is the language of a release of liability typically going to need to be interpreted?