When construing commercial contracts, competing constructions should be tested by reference to commercially realistic scenarios rather than extreme hypothetical examples that produce absurd results. The case also illustrates that where a contract allocates risk through a multi-step process (notification, inspection, separation, audit), the absence of an express obligation at one step — contrasted with an express obligation at a subsequent step — is a strong indicator that no such obligation was intended at the earlier step.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.