In any event, it is advisable to formulate the contractual terms in writing and have them signed by both parties in order to avoid difficulties in the content or even the existence of an agreement. Under Dutch contract law, contracts for anchoring or supplementing the probation rule often contain whole contractual clauses: second, the interpretation of contracts between professionals. Interpretation is often guided by the wording of the provision in relation to the other provisions of the agreement. The other party invokes the intent of the provision and agreement, as well as the manner in which the parties deal with each other. The reasoning is: „While the agreement may not address this situation as words, the intent was for it to cover this situation.“ Or vice versa: „The provision is not designed that way for this situation. It should not be interpreted that way. „This is the statement based on the intentions of the parties. In addition, the future is uncertain. It is not possible to prepare for all kinds of contingencies to come. If market conditions change for a company, existing agreements may become unprofitable. The parties will look at the outstanding provisions differently. Do they provide a solution to the developments? In the Netherlands, the courts have strongly rejected evidence of probation, including in a commercial setting. This means that the parties are free to argue and demonstrate that an interpretation other than a literal interpretation of a given contractual clause is more consistent with the intentions of the parties.
This will even be the case if the contract in question contains what is called a „complete contractual clause.“ A conflict of interpretation of a treaty often takes place as follows. One party refers to an obligation that may or may not be included in the literal text of the agreement. The reasoning is: „Since the text of the treaty creates an obligation, you are obliged“ or „Since the text of the treaty does not create an obligation, I am not obliged to do so.“ That is the literal interpretation of the treaty. Why do conflicts arise when the parties have reached a clear agreement? Words and concepts can have a different meaning for different people. Parties often underestimate the amount of know-how involved in their activities. A foreigner without this know-how is often different at the same appointment. A contract should be clear enough that a foreigner, without specific knowledge of the industry, can understand the agreement after reading the document. In practice, it is not always possible to enter into such a clear contract. First, the so-called CAD method.
This method of interpretation deals almost exclusively with the text of the provision and any references. It is mainly used with texts designed to be used by large categories of people (CAO is an acronym for collective agreements in Dutch). The reason is that, in a text intended for a large number of people, the interpretation of the text should be the same and be different depending on the intent of the parties using it. What matters is the literal meaning of the text, not what the parties themselves might have had different conceptions or expectations of a text. Cooperation between men is the engine of our progress. Poor communication in cooperation is one of the main hotbeds of conflict. Clear agreements are therefore essential. The parties are more certain that their statements on cooperation are the same.