Objective v subjective meaning: this is the first hurdle in interpretation. In UPM v BWG, Irish cts have said that it is cts task to ascertain the intention of the parties and this should be an objective rather than subjective approach, and should consider what would have been the intention of reasonable persons in the position of the parties. This was seen in the UK case, Investors compensation scheme where it was noted that the law excludes from the admissible background the previous negotiation of the parties and their declarations f subjective intent. It was also said that the meaning of the words should be those of a reasonable man (objective standard) and meaning comes from dictionaries and grammars. The interpretation of contracts on the basis of ‘natural and ordinary meaning’ reflects the commonplace position that we do not accept easily that individuals make linguistic mistakes particularly in formal documents. Investor Compensation Scheme case was approved in Ireland in Law Society of Ireland v MIBI, where it was noted that the meaning of a contract is far more than merely the meaning of the words in it: “ a contract is a form of communication intended to convey the meaning agued upon by the parties. Words are the vehicle through which the meaning is conveyed. Words are important but they are only a guide and can sometimes be ambiguous like in real life and it can sometimes for whatever the wrong words may have been used. In those circumstances, the words must give way”. Therefore, it follows that in this jurisdiction, the meaning of contracts will be interpreted in a holistic way though semantics i.e. the meaning of words and syntax being the order of arranging words. This leads into the situation that it is not for cts to decide for the parties what they have agreed even if they have signed up to a ‘disastrous contract’: Tradax (Ireland). Wood v Capita, in the UK, is a case which demonstrates the tension between the words and the context they were made in. the lesson for drafts people is to get as close to the commercial intent of the parties as possible, the less likely that ct will have to look outside the 4 corners of the contract.