Reference no: EM133539174

Using australian law answer this essay question with express, implied, pre contractual and interpreting terms

In Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice, Shylock and Antonio form a contract in which the terms state that Antonio will lose a 'pound of his flesh' if he does not pay back money borrowed for Bassanio within 3 months. When he defaults, Shylock, eager for revenge, demands the pound of flesh. In court he demonstrates a merciless interpretation of contract law regardless of the brutal consequences.

In contrast, Portia argues that while Shylock can have what his contract allows, a pound of flesh exactly, the contract makes no mention of blood, and so does not entitle him to shed any of Antonio's blood. He may, therefore, only remove the flesh if no blood can be spilt -an obvious impossibility.1

Of course, this fictional (and tragic) example of a contract would not be valid in the real world. Putting that aside, use this as a basis to address the following question:

How would courts today approach Shylock's contract with Antonio?

In your answer you must:

(i) outline the present state of law regarding the interpretation of terms, including the key steps and approaches to interpreting contracts; and

(ii) identify and critically evaluate the rationale for why the courts apply these principles.