Labeling of Retouched Ads: What You Need to Know

Interpretation rules are unwritten principles that provide guidance when the interpretative factors do not indicate a specific outcome in contract interpretation. The rule of ambiguity, the most central interpretative rule in Norwegian law, implies that the contract is interpreted against the party who should have expressed themselves more clearly. The minimum rule suggests that the least burdensome alternative for the promisor is chosen. For standard contracts, special considerations apply, but recent case law shows that these are also interpreted according to general interpretative principles. Particularly for 'agreed documents,' decisive weight is given to the wording, while unilateral standard terms are more often interpreted restrictively in favour of the weaker party.

Contract interpretation is a central aspect of contract law and concerns establishing the legal effects that an entered agreement has between the parties. In Norwegian law, the interpretation process primarily follows the objective interpretation principle but can be modified by the mutual understanding of the parties. In cases of unclear wording, the purpose of the agreement, the expectations of the parties, and genuine considerations are emphasised. Commercial agreements are interpreted particularly strictly according to their wording. In cases of persistent ambiguity, the agreement may be supplemented with solutions from background law. The good faith standard protects parties who had a legitimate expectation of how the agreement should be understood.

Can an agreement that is initially invalid be subsequently ratified and thereby obtain legal effect? This article explains when an invalid disposition can be remedied through subsequent approval (ratification), what limitations apply to various grounds for invalidity, and how a bona fide co-contractor may oppose such ratification. A key aspect of contract law that balances the consideration of freedom of contract against the need to protect weaker parties.

When is an agreement invalid due to its content? This article provides an overview of central rules regarding content defects, ranging from agreements about games and betting to the general leniency rule in the Contracts Act § 36. The article explains when courts may set aside or amend agreements with unreasonable content, and how consumers have special protection through the Contracts Act § 37. Key decisions from the Supreme Court illustrate how the rules operate in practice.