The Council served a notice to vary charges and the Co referred the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator stated a case to the Supreme Ct NSW which held that the variation clause was meaningless and void for uncertainty. It is indisputable that the council would incur costs other than that of the supply - eg taking the electricity from the point of receipt to the point of delivery. The quantification of all such costs must be uncertain. If it is capable of a meaning, it will bear the meaning which the court or aribitrator thinks is its proper construction.
Construction is to ascertain and apply the intention of the parties.
Narrow and pedantic approaches are not wanted particularly regarding commercial agreements. Thus will uncertainty, as opposed to absence of meaning be resolved. A contract to build a bridge at cost could not, in my opinion, be said to be void for uncertainty, or be meaningless or ambiguous. Here, the contract provided a means for resolving uncertainty by reference to the arbitrator. If the words were meaningless, then an arbitration procedure would not save the agreement.