Unless otherwise in context, ——————- following terms, when used in this amendment, have the meanings attributed to them in this section 1.2. Unless the context requires otherwise, ——————— the terms attached to and included in Appendix A, when used in this context, have indicated the corresponding meaning, each of which applies to both the singular and plural forms of the term thus defined. Unless the context requires another thing: ————– 1.2.1 the singular and plural words in number are considered as the others and pronouns with one male or female are considered as the other. In other cases, this is a less clear justification, and Article 3 could positively confuse lay people and some legal experts if they believe that a calendar month runs only from the first to the last of the month, just as many people understand a calendar year that runs from January 1 to December 31. But that would be a bad assumption. If a contract. B requires a party to terminate 3 months and that the above clause specifies that the months are calendar months, the termination given today (15 August 2015) expires on 15 November 2015 and not on 30 November or at the end of another month. Unless otherwise stated in context, the capital terms used in this agreement have the following meanings. 17 (2) When a statute annuls and re-extends a previous order with or without amendment, unless there is the contrary intent, – Here are some examples from the SEC`s EDGAR database, provisions that contain the phrase, unless the context requires something else: section 4 is intended not to apply the rule of interpretation eiusdem generis (of the same type) , under which, when a general principle is followed, examples are provided. examples may limit the scope of the general principle.
There is an old case law in this sense. It is questionable whether this is an important issue in the modern approach to treaty interpretation. In general, the rationale is that interpretive clauses provide a safety valve to avoid too narrow an interpretation. But this kind of argument is based on a false premise about how courts work on contracts. The above legislation dates back to a time when treaties were generally interpreted very narrowly and precisely, as was the method of interpretation. Since the 1970s, English higher courts have gradually relaxed the rules for the interpretation of contracts and the process has accelerated over the past decade. See, for example, Lord Clarke`s discussion in the Rainy Sky case (2011) on the principles to be followed, even if it is possible to apply commercial common sense. The case was briefly discussed here on this blog.
23 … article 17, paragraph 2, point a), acts adopted under Article 17, paragraph 2, paragraph (a) above, or any subordinate legislation adopted under this Act in the years of this Act, the reference to any other act or instrument or document. Unless expressly foreseen or otherwise in context, all references to the singular contain the plural and vice versa. 61. For all acts, contracts, wills, contracts and other instruments that are executed, rendered or put into service after this Act comes into force, unless the context requires it otherwise – unless the context requires something else, references to the “company” are considered a reference to the company and its subsidiaries.
