A spokesperson for the website said they were very disappointed to have had to close the service because of legal advice. "... It is trite that the main task of the construction is to discover the intention of the parts from the words of the instrument. If the words used are clear, the Court of Justice must give effect to them: Australian Broadcasting Commission/Australian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99 at 109. The general rule states that evidence of the surrounding circumstances is permitted to assist in the interpretation of an act when the language is ambiguous. But the evidence of The situation is not allowed to contradict the language if it has a clear meaning: Codelpha Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 per Mason J at 347; Southern Resources Ltd v Technomin Australia NL [1990] WAR 72. This rule is not absolute. Extrinsic evidence is permitted to identify the meaning of a word: Life Insurance Co of Australia Ltd v Phillips (1925) 36 CLR 60 at 78; Southern Resources v Technomin Australia NL at 84. In particular, it is always permissible to prove facts known to each other, even if there is no overt ambiguity - to demonstrate the meaning of a descriptive term in a written deed: Homestate Australia Ltd/Metana Mineral NL (1994) 11 WAR 435 for 447 cases and cases mentioned in this... ». 1. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd -v- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26. 2.

The amount of damages naturally depends on a number of factors. See Hadley -v- Baxendale [1854] 9 Exch 341. 3. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd -v- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26, 70. 4.C is for example, in Dominion Corporate Trustees Ltd -v- Debenhams Properties Ltd [2010] EWHC 1193 (Ch), the Court interpreted an apparently intermediate condition in which the elimination of dismissal for a minor offence appeared too drastic. 5. In Union Eagle Ltd -v- Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] UKPC 5, a 10-minute delay in the payment of the purchase price led to the termination of a home purchase agreement and the cancellation of the bond paid.

6. United Scientific Holdings Ltd -v- Burnley BC [1974] AC 904, under 943-944. 7. Lombard North Central plc -v- Butterworth [1987] QB 527 CA 8. British and Commonwealth Holdings plc -v- Quadrex Holdings Inc [1989] 3 WLR 723 9. The notice of contract is not technically the condition of time, but proves the date on which it would be wise to require the undertaking.