Legal Definitions - plain-meaning rule

The plain-meaning rule is a principle of legal interpretation stating that if the words in a document—such as a contract, statute, or will—appear clear and unambiguous on their face, their meaning must be determined solely from the language within the document itself. This rule dictates that courts should not look at outside information (known as "extrinsic evidence") to interpret the document if its words are straightforward and easy to understand. The idea is that the plain language of the text is the best and only indicator of what was intended.

• Example 1: A Commercial Lease Agreement

  Imagine a commercial lease agreement between a landlord and a tenant that contains a clause stating: "The tenant shall be responsible for all repairs to the interior of the leased premises, including plumbing and electrical systems." If a major electrical issue arises, the tenant argues that during negotiations, the landlord verbally promised to cover significant structural repairs. However, applying the plain-meaning rule, a court would likely disregard the tenant's claim about verbal promises. The written clause clearly and unambiguously assigns responsibility for electrical system repairs to the tenant, and no outside evidence would be considered to alter this clear statement.

• Example 2: A Municipal Ordinance

  Consider a local city ordinance that reads: "No person shall operate a motorized vehicle on any public beach within city limits." A person is cited for riding an electric scooter on the beach. If the term "motorized vehicle" is not further defined in the ordinance, a court applying the plain-meaning rule would interpret "motorized vehicle" according to its common, everyday understanding. Since an electric scooter clearly fits the description of a "motorized vehicle," the court would likely uphold the citation, without considering arguments about the city council's unstated intent to only ban cars or ATVs, as such arguments would rely on extrinsic evidence.

• Example 3: A Last Will and Testament

  Suppose a will contains a provision stating: "I bequeath my entire collection of antique watches to my nephew, David Miller." After the testator's death, another relative, Sarah, claims that the testator had often told her they intended for Sarah to receive half of the watch collection. Under the plain-meaning rule, a court would look only at the clear language of the will itself. The will unambiguously states that the entire collection goes to David Miller. Sarah's claims about verbal promises would be considered extrinsic evidence and would not be used to interpret or change the clear written instruction in the will.