In contract interpretation, what does a court generally consider regarding documents?

In contract interpretation, courts often consider the principle that the most recently signed document takes precedence over earlier documents. This is based on the understanding that parties may have updated their intentions or agreements after the earlier documents were executed. When resolving disputes regarding the terms of a contract, courts look to the most current expressions of the parties' intentions, assuming that any changes made reflect the parties' latest agreements.

The reasoning behind this principle is that it aids in aligning the actual performance and duties of the parties with their agreed-upon terms. The most recently executed document is usually viewed as the most relevant and reflective of the current relationship between the parties involved. Therefore, it holds significant weight in legal interpretations of contractual obligations.

In contrast, all documents being treated equally does not account for the notion of progression and clarity in agreements, which could lead to confusion. The validity of notarized documents is relevant in some contexts, but it does not encompass all agreements, particularly informal or straightforward contracts. Additionally, the concept that oral agreements can override written contracts contradicts the general legal principle that written contracts are usually deemed more authoritative, particularly in disputes. This helps maintain the integrity of documented agreements and provides certainty to the terms established by the parties.