359 / 432
R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 20, n. 79, p. 348 - 376, Maio/Agosto 2017
359
and essentially echoing its French counterpart, declares: “When interpreting a
contract, one should inquire into the common intention of the parties rather
than limit oneself to the literal sense of the words.”
45
Bolivian law formulates
this principle similarly.
46
The Brazilian legal system, inspired by the German
model, deploys practically identical language when discussing “declarations of
intent,” which constitute a key element in contractual exegesis.
47
Chile’s Civil Code, for its part, takes this overall approach most
typically: “If clearly known, the intention of the contracting parties shall
carry more weight than the contract’s literal words.”
48
Colombia, Ecuador,
and El Salvador each use the same phrasing,
49
while many other nations rely
on an equivalent formulation: “If the terms of a contract are clear and leave
no doubt about the intention of its parties, one should focus on the literal
sense of its clauses. If the words appear to run counter to the parties’ clear
intention, the latter shall take precedence over the former.”
50
Accordingly, a
tribunal in any of these jurisdictions should favor an interpretation that the
parties manifestly intended over what the contract expresses.
The main provision of the Peruvian Civil Code on this matter,
Article 1361, calls for construction from a similar standpoint: “One should
presume the terms contained in the contract to coincide with the intent
of the parties. Whoever denies such coincidence shall bear the burden of
proof.”
51
In other words, judges should concentrate on the aim of the parties
and treat the ultimately undersigned document as the principal evidentiary
45
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Para.) (1985), art. 708 (“Al interpretarse el contrato se deberá indagar cuál ha sido la intención común de parte
y no limitarse al sentido literal de las palabras.”).
See also
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Fr.) (1804), art. 1156 (“On doit dans les conventions
rechercher quelle a été la commune intention des parties contractantes, plutôt que de s’arrêter au sens littéral des termes.”)
(“One should inquire into the common intention of the parties to a contract rather than limit oneself to the literal sense
of the words.”).
46
See
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Bol.) (1976), art. 510 (“En la interpretación de los contratos se debe averiguar cuál ha sido la intención
común de las partes y no limitarse al sentido literal de las palabras.”) (“When interpreting a contract, one should find out
the common intention of the parties rather than limit oneself to the literal meaning of the words.”).
47
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Braz.) (2003), art. 112 (“Nas declarações de vontade se atenderá mais à intenção nelas consubstanciada do que
ao sentido literal da linguagem.”) (“Regarding declarations of intent, one should attend more to the intent embodied in them
than to the literal sense of the words.”).
See also
BGB (Germany) (1900), Art.133 (“Bei der Auslegung einer Willenserklärung
ist der wirkliche Wille zu erforschen und nicht an dem buchstäblichen Sinne des Ausdrucks zu haften.”) (“In interpreting a
declaration of intent, one should inquire into the actual intent rather than into the literal meaning of the words.”).
48
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Chile) (1857), art. 1560 (“Conocida claramente la intención de los contratantes, debe estarse a ella más que
a lo literal de las palabras.”).
49
See
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Colom.) (1887), art. 1618;
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Ecuad.) (2005), art. 1576;
C
d
. C
iv
.
(El. Salv.) (1859), art. 1431.
50
See, e.g.,
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Hond.) (1906), art. 1576;
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Mex., D.F.) (1928), art. 1851;
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Nicar.) (1904), art. 2496;
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Pan.) (1961), art. 1132;
C
d
. C
iv
.
(P.R.) (1939), art. 1233 (“Si los términos de un contrato son claros y no dejan
duda sobre la intención de los contratantes, se estará al sentido literal de sus cláusulas. Si las palabras parecieren contrarias
a la intención evidente de los contratantes, prevalecerá ésta sobre aquéllas.”).
51
C
d
. C
iv
.
(Peru) (1984), art. 1361 (“Se presume que la declaración expresada en el contrato responde a la voluntad
común de las partes y quien niegue esa coincidencia debe probarla.”).