Legal Memorandum: Rules for Interpreting a Contract in NJ

Issue: Under New Jersey law, what rules of construction aid a court in interpreting a contract?

With regard to document construction in general, the New Jersey Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the first step in interpreting a contract is to “examine the plain language of [the document] and, if the terms are clear, they are to be given their plain, ordinary meaning.”  Pizzullo v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 196 N.J. 251, 270 (2008) TA l "Pizzullo v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 196 N.J. 251 (2008)" s "Pizzullo v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. (2008)" c 1 .  Similarly, in interpreting a statute, this Court has “cautioned against ‘rewrit[ing] a plainly-written enactment of the Legislature or presum[ing] that the Legislature intended something other than that expressed by way of the plain language.'”  Hardy ex rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin, 198 N.J. 95, 101 (2009) TA l "Hardy ex rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin, 198 N.J. 95 (2009)" s "Hardy ex rel. Dowdell v. Abdul-Matin (2009)" c 1  (quoting DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005) TA l "DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005)" s "DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005)" c 1 ).  The general rule has been that “[t]he law will not make a better contract for parties than they themselves have seen fit to enter into, or alter it for the benefit of one party and to the detriment of the other.”  James v. Federal Ins. Co., 5 N.J. 21, 24-25 (1950) TA s "James v. Federal Ins. Co., 5 […]