QUESTION 9

THE CASE STUDY t has been pointed out that the primary difference consisted in the fact that the parole evidence rule in Australia made exception of the evidences that inherently related to the circumstantial situation of a context. Therefore, it is to be noted that while developing his judgement, Justice Mason referred and adopted the simplistic approach and interpretation of the Australian Contract law that categorically eliminated the use of additional evidences whatsoever for the court use, if the contractual terms were clear and definite. However, in spite of the apparent criticism it must also be noted that Justice Mason had further elucidated that in the course of his elaboration that by the virtue of adopting a simplistic approach it would be necessary to admit and accept other additional evidences, particularly in a contract, the formation of which is based on the other situational factors. Therefore, it is imperative to interpret those situational parameters in order to analyze the potential contradiction and uncertainties that might be created in the same contractual terms in the later period (McCormick). The American courts have, however, expressed their concern over the permission of the parole evidence stating the admission of the parole evidence allows spaces for the creation of uncertainties. It implies that this permission would give rise to multiple meanings to the contractual document and make it practically difficult for the court to arrive at any definite judgement. It has also been noted that the American approach becomes irrelevant and unnecessary for the objective contractual approach in Australia. This is because in the judgement of the aforementioned case, the court would be deciding on the relevant interpretation of the situational dilemma and what steps a reasonable man might have taken in the given situation and not just rely on the documented contractual terms and the contractual interpretation of the parties (Mohamed).

From the historical perspective, it could be contented that in the 20th Century, the the English and the Australian Courts have explained that a Court is capable of elucidating, explaining, and interpreting a contract, without any reference to the external situation pertaining to the contract formation. The House of Lords in 1971 had further added that the contracting parties would be executing their evidences based in their intentions. This evidence was irrelevant to the core structure of the contract. Most importantly, the contract shall be excluded from its general situational background that existed when the involved parties documented the contractual terms. Therefore, by the virtue of the implication it is meant that court is eliminate any contractual terms that was not a part of the contract. The court will, however, interrogate the involved parties about their intention and the changes it might have made to the situation, had it been a part of the written agreement. In the light of this context, Justice Mason had highlighted upon the fact that these contractual terms would be included as an important part of the parole evidence and only when it has been satisfactorily determined that the contracting parties are aware of the facts (Naylor, Brownwyn and Johannes). In regard to this context, it is to be understood that the evidences that were earlier considered permissible, and were founded upon the factual backdrop of the evidences, will not be treated anymore as a part of the evidences. On the contrary, the evidence would be referred to and would be addressed only if the contracting parties were acquainted with facts and terms of the case and the evidences in question. Nothing else shall be considered as a part of the evidence until and unless it was a documented clause in the written agreement (Ostendorf). This is also known as the objective theory of the contracting rule By the virtue of this rule, it was contended that the intention of the contracting parties would be taken into consideration. This implied it would be analyzed whether the intention of the contracting parties hold true and relevant to the given case. Besides the most important part of the case centered around the objectives of the involved contracting parties. Therefore, the Court of Australia based on this approach, had to admit the validity of the background information as an evidential force that had be accepted by the court. It is furthermore contended that the court would interpret the contractual terms and clauses in a manner, in a same way, it had been interpreted and perceived by the contracting parties, without any relation to the parole evidence rule.t has been pointed out that the primary difference consisted in the fact that the parole evidence rule in Australia made exception of the evidences that inherently related to the circumstantial situation of a context. Therefore, it is to be noted that while developing his judgement, Justice Mason referred and adopted the simplistic approach and interpretation of the Australian Contract law that categorically eliminated the use of additional evidences whatsoever for the court use, if the contractual terms were clear and definite. However, in spite of the apparent criticism it must also be noted that Justice Mason had further elucidated that in the course of his elaboration that by the virtue of adopting a simplistic approach it would be necessary to admit and accept other additional evidences, particularly in a contract, the formation of which is based on the other situational factors. Therefore, it is imperative to interpret those situational parameters in order to analyze the potential contradiction and uncertainties that might be created in the same contractual terms in the later period (McCormick). The American courts have, however, expressed their concern over the permission of the parole evidence stating the admission of the parole evidence allows spaces for the creation of uncertainties. It implies that this permission would give rise to multiple meanings to the contractual document and make it practically difficult for the court to arrive at any definite judgement. It has also been noted that the American approach becomes irrelevant and unnecessary for the objective contractual approach in Australia. This is because in the judgement of the aforementioned case, the court would be deciding on the relevant interpretation of the situational dilemma and what steps a reasonable man might have taken in the given situation and not just rely on the documented contractual terms and the contractual interpretation of the parties (Mohamed).

From the historical perspective, it could be contented that in the 20th Century, the the English and the Australian Courts have explained that a Court is capable of elucidating, explaining, and interpreting a contract, without any reference to the external situation pertaining to the contract formation. The House of Lords in 1971 had further added that the contracting parties would be executing their evidences based in their intentions. This evidence was irrelevant to the core structure of the contract. Most importantly, the contract shall be excluded from its general situational background that existed when the involved parties documented the contractual terms. Therefore, by the virtue of the implication it is meant that court is eliminate any contractual terms that was not a part of the contract. The court will, however, interrogate the involved parties about their intention and the changes it might have made to the situation, had it been a part of the written agreement. In the light of this context, Justice Mason had highlighted upon the fact that these contractual terms would be included as an important part of the parole evidence and only when it has been satisfactorily determined that the contracting parties are aware of the facts (Naylor, Brownwyn and Johannes). In regard to this context, it is to be understood that the evidences that were earlier considered permissible, and were founded upon the factual backdrop of the evidences, will not be treated anymore as a part of the evidences. On the contrary, the evidence would be referred to and would be addressed only if the contracting parties were acquainted with facts and terms of the case and the evidences in question. Nothing else shall be considered as a part of the evidence until and unless it was a documented clause in the written agreement (Ostendorf). This is also known as the objective theory of the contracting rule By the virtue of this rule, it was contended that the intention of the contracting parties would be taken into consideration. This implied it would be analyzed whether the intention of the contracting parties hold true and relevant to the given case. Besides the most important part of the case centered around the objectives of the involved contracting parties. Therefore, the Court of Australia based on this approach, had to admit the validity of the background information as an evidential force that had be accepted by the court. It is furthermore contended that the court would interpret the contractual terms and clauses in a manner, in a same way, it had been interpreted and perceived by the contracting parties, without any relation to the parole evidence rule.t has been pointed out that the primary difference consisted in the fact that the parole evidence rule in Australia made exception of the evidences that inherently related to the circumstantial situation of a context. Therefore, it is to be noted that while developing his judgement, Justice Mason referred and adopted the simplistic approach and interpretation of the Australian Contract law that categorically eliminated the use of additional evidences whatsoever for the court use, if the contractual terms were clear and definite. However, in spite of the apparent criticism it must also be noted that Justice Mason had further elucidated that in the course of his elaboration that by the virtue of adopting a simplistic approach it would be necessary to admit and accept other additional evidences, particularly in a contract, the formation of which is based on the other situational factors. Therefore, it is imperative to interpret those situational parameters in order to analyze the potential contradiction and uncertainties that might be created in the same contractual terms in the later period (McCormick). The American courts have, however, expressed their concern over the permission of the parole evidence stating the admission of the parole evidence allows spaces for the creation of uncertainties. It implies that this permission would give rise to multiple meanings to the contractual document and make it practically difficult for the court to arrive at any definite judgement. It has also been noted that the American approach becomes irrelevant and unnecessary for the objective contractual approach in Australia. This is because in the judgement of the aforementioned case, the court would be deciding on the relevant interpretation of the situational dilemma and what steps a reasonable man might have taken in the given situation and not just rely on the documented contractual terms and the contractual interpretation of the parties (Mohamed).

From the historical perspective, it could be contented that in the 20th Century, the the English and the Australian Courts have explained that a Court is capable of elucidating, explaining, and interpreting a contract, without any reference to the external situation pertaining to the contract formation. The House of Lords in 1971 had further added that the contracting parties would be executing their evidences based in their intentions. This evidence was irrelevant to the core structure of the contract. Most importantly, the contract shall be excluded from its general situational background that existed when the involved parties documented the contractual terms. Therefore, by the virtue of the implication it is meant that court is eliminate any contractual terms that was not a part of the contract. The court will, however, interrogate the involved parties about their intention and the changes it might have made to the situation, had it been a part of the written agreement. In the light of this context, Justice Mason had highlighted upon the fact that these contractual terms would be included as an important part of the parole evidence and only when it has been satisfactorily determined that the contracting parties are aware of the facts (Naylor, Brownwyn and Johannes). In regard to this context, it is to be understood that the evidences that were earlier considered permissible, and were founded upon the factual backdrop of the evidences, will not be treated anymore as a part of the evidences. On the contrary, the evidence would be referred to and would be addressed only if the contracting parties were acquainted with facts and terms of the case and the evidences in question. Nothing else shall be considered as a part of the evidence until and unless it was a documented clause in the written agreement (Ostendorf). This is also known as the objective theory of the contracting rule By the virtue of this rule, it was contended that the intention of the contracting parties would be taken into consideration. This implied it would be analyzed whether the intention of the contracting parties hold true and relevant to the given case. Besides the most important part of the case centered around the objectives of the involved contracting parties. Therefore, the Court of Australia based on this approach, had to admit the validity of the background information as an evidential force that had be accepted by the court. It is furthermore contended that the court would interpret the contractual terms and clauses in a manner, in a same way, it had been interpreted and perceived by the contracting parties, without any relation to the parole evidence rule.

1. The ______ of government _____ is appointed by the ______________ of India.

2. If the company's _____ go beyond the _____ of the _____, its act will be ______________.

3. Every _____ of a company is also known as ______________.

4. Articles of ______ adopt the _________ contained in ______________ of schedule I of the ______ Act.

5. A ______________ may be defined as a ______ having a control over the _____, conduct and _____ of a company.

6. The managing ________ hold the ______________ shares of the __________.

7.A meeting of ______ of Directors shall be _____ at least ______________

8.When a director __________ remains absent from the three ______ meetings of the ______of Directors, and_________

9.The first _______ general meeting of the ________must be held within ______________

10.The______ of the company has ______________ vote