| ||1. Common intention of the parties to prevail
Paragraph (1) of this Article lays down the principle that in determining the meaning to be attached to the terms of a contract, preference is to be given to the intention common to the parties. In consequence, a contract term may be given a meaning which differs both from the literal sense of the language used and from the meaning which a reasonable person would attach to it, provided that such a different understanding was common to the parties at the time of the conclusion of the contract.
The practical importance of the principle should not be over-estimated, firstly because parties to commercial transactions are unlikely to use language in a sense entirely different from that usually attached to it, and secondly because even if this were to be the case it would be extremely difficult, once a dispute arises, to prove that a particular meaning which one of the parties claims to have been their common intention was in fact shared by the other party at the time of the conclusion of the contract.
2. Recourse to the understanding of reasonable persons
For those cases where the common intention of the parties cannot be established, paragraph (2) provides that the contract shall be interpreted in accordance with the meaning which reasonable persons of the same kind as the parties would give to it in the same circumstances. The test is not a general and abstract criterion of reasonableness, but rather the understanding which could reasonably be expected of persons with, for example, the same linguistic knowledge, technical skill, or business experience as the parties.
3. How to establish the common intention of the parties or to determine the understanding of reasonable persons
In order to establish whether the parties had a common intention and, if so, what that common intention was, regard is to be had to all the relevant circumstances of the case, the most important of which are listed in Article 4.3. The same applies to the determination of the understanding of reasonable persons when no common intention of the parties can be established.
4. Interpretation of standard terms
Both the “subjective” test laid down in paragraph (1) and the “reasonableness” test in paragraph (2) may not always be appropriate in the context of standard terms. Indeed, given their special nature and purpose, standard terms should be interpreted primarily in accordance with the reasonable expectations of their average users irrespective of the actual understanding which either of the parties to the contract concerned, or reasonable persons of the same kind as the parties, might have had. For the definition of “standard terms”, see Article 2.1.19(2).