Common use of Is an Evolutionary Interpretation Possible Clause in Contracts

Is an Evolutionary Interpretation Possible. In light of this last decision and with regards to the ‘draft Statement’ prepared by the plenary of the 1999 Montreal Conference, one wonders whether Courts are indeed allowed to adopt an evolutionary interpretation of the term ‘bodily injury’.152 The ‘draft Statement’ is, however, in opposition with the literal meaning, context, purposes and object of the 1999 Montreal Convention, which requires the adoption of a uniform approach in its interpretation and application.153 It also stands in contradiction with longstanding case law in many different jurisdictions.154 I confirm that the choice not to include mental injury in the 1999 Montreal Convention under the term ‘bodily injury’ was the outcome of negotiations on the consensus package, which resulted in a series of specific liability thresholds that accommodated the need for balance between passenger and carrier rights.155 The intention was clearly to adopt common liability thresholds, and not to include mental injuries. Should ‘mental inju- 150 Pel-Air Aviation Pty x. Xxxxx, [2017] NSWCA 32, at 52. 151 Audiencia Provincial Madrid, 1 February 2008, ECLI:ES:APM:2008:10106: ‘[…] por lesión corporal ha de considerarse no solamente la lesión física, sino también la psíquica. De lo contrario se llegaría al contrasentido de que en base al Convenio de Montreal pudieran indemnizarse los xxxxx xxxxxxx derivados de simples lesiones físicas de muy escasa tras- cendencia (o xx xxxxx sufridos en el equipaje), pero quedaran sin indemnizar secuelas psíquicas (que en ocasiones pueden llegar a ser incluso invalidantes) sufridas por un pasajero como consecuencia de lo acaecido en un transporte aéreo internacional’. This decision concerned two passengers who suffered anxiety following two aborted take- offs and decided not to pursue their journey from Madrid to Edinburgh. They sought compensation for material damage (the price of their tour in Scotland and the taxi costs back home from the airport) but not for moral damage (the anxiety itself). See, Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx, El contracto de transporte aéreo de pasajeros: sujetos, estatuto y responsabilidad 189 (Dykinson, Madrid, 2013). 152 Evolutionary concepts are generally limited to general or generic terms, such as ‘modern world’ or ‘well-being’, in opposition to specific terms. See, International Law Commis- sion, Draft conclusions on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties, with commentaries 50 (2018). 153 See, Chapter 2 and 1969 Vienna Convention, Article 31(1). 154 See, 1969 Vienna Convention, Article 31(3). See also, International Law Commission, Draft conclusions on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties, with commentaries 54 and 55 point 20 (2018). The ILC refers to the exclusion of evolutionary interpretations of the term ‘bodily injury’ in domestic courts. 155 See, Xxx Xxxxx, A New Era in the Law of International Carriage by Air: from Warsaw (1929) to Montreal (1999), 53 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 850 (2004). xxxx’ now be considered as included, the substantive rules of the Convention would have to be discussed once again, particularly with regards to the choice of a strict liability regime. In my view, the wording of the 1999 Montreal Convention is clear. When adopting that standpoint, I also take into consideration later instruments of international law, which make a clear distinction between bodily injury and mental injury.156