Source: https://www.hpylaw.com/publications/the-surrounding-circumstances-doctrine-for-contract-construction/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 23:54:57+00:00

Document:
Thus, it is apparent that the Supreme Court should resolve the confusion created by these divergent views once and for all. But what approach should the Court take? Should surrounding circumstances be considered to determine the meaning of a term even when it appears to be unambiguous on its face? The answer is yes.
Justice Holmes makes it clear that a reasonable and objective understanding of language is not derived solely from the pages of Merriam-Webster. It is derived from our everyday experience and from the context in which we use the words that bind us. Perhaps our courts have been misguided by the myth that looking to surrounding circumstances would require an inquiry into “what this man meant.”13 But this is not the question they are asked to answer. The question is “what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used….”14 The Supreme Court should reaffirm its approval of Justice Holmes’ approach and relieve us of the inconsistency found in the last half-century of Texas jurisprudence.
1 Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425, 38 S. Ct. 158, 159, 62 L. Ed. 372 (1918).
2 City of Pinehurst v. Spooner Addition Water Co., 432 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex. 1968).
3 E. Allan Farnsworth, Contracts 492-93 (1982).
4 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 536 (1952).
5 11 Williston on Contracts § 33:42 (4th Ed.).
6 See, e.g., Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 521 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam); see also City of Pinehurst v. Spooner Addition Water Co., 432 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex. 1968).
7 See, e.g., Kachina Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Lillis, 471 S.W.3d 445, 450 (Tex. 2015).
8 See, e.g., Houston Exploration Co. v. Wellington Underwriting Agencies, Ltd., 352 S.W.3d 462, 469 (Tex. 2011).
9 Newman v. Firstmark Credit Union, 2015 WL 4998326, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, no pet.).
12 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417, –418 (1899).
13 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417, –418 (1899).
14 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417, –418 (1899).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 536
 § 33
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.