Define: Literal Construction

Literal construction refers to the interpretation of a law or contract based solely on the plain and ordinary meaning of its words, without considering any external factors or intentions of the parties involved.

Literal construction is important because it ensures consistency and predictability in the application of laws and contracts. It prevents judges from injecting their personal beliefs or biases into the interpretation process.

While literal construction aims to provide clarity and objectivity, there are instances where it may lead to unjust outcomes. In such cases, courts may resort to other interpretive methods, such as purposive or contextual interpretation, to achieve a fair and just result.

Yes, there are exceptions to literal construction. Courts may deviate from literal interpretation when the plain meaning of the words leads to absurd or unreasonable results, or when it conflicts with the overall purpose or intent of the law or contract.

Courts typically rely on dictionaries and other linguistic resources to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words. They may also consider the context in which the words are used and any relevant legal precedents.

Literal construction is not suitable for all legal situations. In some cases, the language of a law or contract may be ambiguous or unclear, requiring courts to employ other interpretive methods to ascertain the true intent of the parties involved.

Legislative history, which includes records of debates, committee reports, and other documents related to the enactment of a law, can be used to support or challenge a literal construction. It provides insight into the lawmakers’ intent and can help determine whether a literal interpretation aligns with that intent.

Yes, legislative intent can override literal construction. If the legislative history clearly demonstrates that the lawmakers intended a different meaning than what the plain language suggests, courts may deviate from literal interpretation to give effect to that intent.

In contract law, literal construction is generally favored. Courts will interpret the terms of a contract according to their plain and ordinary meaning, unless there is evidence of mutual mistake, fraud, or ambiguity that requires a different interpretation.

Yes, literal construction can be challenged in court. Parties to a legal dispute can argue that the plain meaning of the words does not accurately reflect the true intent of the law or contract, and may present evidence or legal arguments to support their alternative interpretation.