Must a contract be interpreted in context?
<p>Must a contract be interpreted in context?</p>

<p>For example, if a lease contract has an item which is intended from keeping the tenants from attacking/fighting each other or the landlord, what if the activity happens in a location that has nothing to do with the contract, like a boxing gym?</p>

<p>For example, imagine the contract says, "Tenants may not engage in activities that my harm other tenants, the landlord, or guests."</p>

<p>What if a tenant trains at the same boxing gym as the landlord? What if a tenant has a guest over and another tenant beats up that guest on the street? Would either of these be a violation of the lease contract?</p>

<p>The root of the question is what was agreed to. The written contract is just evidence of that agreement. Both plain meaning and context can be used to help interpret that written evidence.</p>

<p>You say that what happens in a boxing gym "has nothing to do with the contract". If everyone agrees that is the case, then the tenants and the landlord training at a boxing gym is not related to the lease.</p>

<p>Beating up a recent guest on the street outside the house might be a violation of the lease if the agreement prohibited fighting guests in or near the house. In some jurisdictions, if the language of the written contract is unambiguous, it doesn't matter what people <em>thought</em> they were agreeing to. If anyone is not sure, they can ask the others what exactly was meant to be prohibited and they can work together to re-write the sentence so that it is clear evidence of what they agreed to.</p>

contract-law