Top Law Schools

There are the 3 theories of interpretation: subjectivist and objective (both outdated now), and modified objective. Under modified objective:

1. If the parties attach the same meaning: congratulations, there's a contract, even if the meaning of a term is not what a reasonable person would attach to it
2. If the parties attach different meanings, and one party had reason to know that the other attached another meaning, then the meaning of the innocent party controls
3. If the parties attach different meanings, and neither party knew or had reason to know of the other's meaning, then there is no contract for lack of mutual assent

But how do the maxims (like contra proferentem, noscitur a sociis, and all that other stuff) fit into this?

thesealocust wrote:

Justice Holmes wrote:The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.

What?