The admissibility of a title as an aid to interpretation is less clear if the title is inconsistent with the content of the following clause. In the case of Gregory Products, the corresponding clause title was, for example, „conditionality,“ whereas the clause was mandatory. Lewison J acknowledged that the clause generally dealt with conditionality, but Burton J. Decision (that the title cannot alter the interpretation of the clause) if it is considered contrary to the decisions of SBJ and Doughty Hanson means that it is difficult to establish a general proposition as to when titles can influence interpretation. Title clauses are used to avoid this issue, expressing the parties` intention not to ensure that the titles do not result in the structure and interpretation of the agreement. Of course, this issue is raised only because of the wrong wording at the beginning. Instead of obstructing interpretation, concise and well-written titles, which correspond to the language of the clause itself, are useful instruments of organization and interpretation. Well-developed sections allow the courts, parties to the Agreement and third parties to understand and implement the agreement; Titles can consolidate the intent of any clause in a concise statement, which facilitates interpretation for the courts and parties. In summary, the title clause is the simple answer and whether the use of the clause should be limited to the period during which the parties must develop the agreement.

Introducing subtitles. Legends allow a law firm to distinguish its style from that of other law firms. The preliminary question, of course, is whether or not the agreements should contain subtitles. Subsequently, the presentation can take different forms: as an online clause header in bold or underlined (the most used styles, as illustrated in the example above) or as a numbered and bold title of an unnumered contractual clause: Burton J also commented that it „… „no assumption“ by the title on condition 8.11 even clause 1.3 of the trust deed. The judge referred to two lines of authority. First, in SBJ Stephenson Ltd/Mandy [2000] FSR 286 and Doughty Hanson- Co. Ltd v. Roe [2007] EWHC 222 (Ch), the Tribunal was faced with a clause stating that „the term titles are inserted solely for convenience and have no influence on the construction of the agreement.“ In SBJ Stephenson, Bell J found that the court could look at the title where it could „tell the reader at a glance what it was.“ Similarly, Mr. J to Doughty Hanson found that the clause in question was „descriptive of what is at issue in the provision.“ Without referring to the position, Burton J found that condition 8.11 did not apply to the contract notice (mainly because the missing issues were related to withdrawal and not to reflection communications).

In addition, such as the conditions „… Burton J found that the „titles must be ignored“ clause (paragraph 1.3) of the facts does not apply to the terms and is next to the trust deed instead of being included. In Stephenson and Doughty Hanson`s Pursuit of Authority, Burton J found that the title and content of State 8.11 were consistent. The judge also indicated that if the title of condition 8.11 were to be ignored, the parties to the agreement would be stunned. It is clear that the four decisions (this decision and the three on which the judge relies) are based on the fact that a title can help if it is consistent with the following clause and that a clause must be read in its entirety to determine its entirety. It would appear, therefore, that if the content of a clause is inconsistent with the title, the title (in a document containing a provision stipulating that titles can be ignored when interpreting the document) must be ignored when determining the rights and obligations of the parties.

© 2013 Lichtlabor-Berlin | wir bringen Licht ins Spiel