| ||1. Interpretation in the light of the whole contract or statement
Terms and expressions used by one or both parties are clearly not intended to operate in isolation but have to be seen as an integral part of their general context. Consequently they should be interpreted in the light of the whole contract or statement in which they appear.
A, a licensee, hears that, despite a provision in their contract granting A an exclusive licence, B, the licensor, has concluded a similar contract with C, one of A’s competitors. A sends B a letter complaining of B’s breach and ending with the words “your behaviour has clearly demonstrated that it was a mistake on our part to rely on your professional correctness. We hereby avoid the contract we have with you”. Despite the use of the term “avoid”, A’s words interpreted in the light of the letter as a whole, must be understood as a notice of termination.
2. In principle no hierarchy among contract terms
In principle there is no hierarchy among contract terms, in the sense that their respective importance for the interpretation of the remaining part of the contract is the same regardless of the order in which they appear. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Firstly, declarations of intent made in the preamble may or may not be of relevance for the interpretation of the operative provisions of the contract. Secondly, it goes without saying that, in cases of conflict, provisions of a specific character prevail over provisions laying down more general rules. Finally, the parties may themselves expressly establish a hierarchy among the different provisions or parts of their contract. This is frequently the case with complex agreements consisting of different documents relating to the legal, economic and technical aspects of the transaction.