Soru

Passage A
In contract law, the objective theory of contracts dictates that agreements should be interpreted strictly according to the plain meaning of the written text. The primary goal of contract law is to provide certainty and predictability in commercial transactions. When businesses enter into agreements, they rely on the final written document as the definitive statement of their rights and obligations. If courts were allowed to delve into the subjective, unwritten intentions of the parties—what they secretly meant or what they discussed during negotiations—this predictability would be destroyed. Written contracts would become mere starting points for litigation rather than final, binding agreements. Therefore, even if a written contract contains a term that one party later claims was a mistake or did not reflect their true intent, the court must enforce the text as written. Furthermore, restricting interpretation to the four corners of the document preserves judicial resources, as courts do not need to conduct lengthy trials to uncover subjective states of mind.

Passage B
The rigid enforcement of written contracts without regard for the actual intentions of the parties often leads to profoundly unjust outcomes. While the written text is a vital piece of evidence in determining what two parties agreed to, it should not be treated as infallible. Human communication is inherently imperfect, and parties frequently make drafting errors, use imprecise language, or fail to anticipate specific scenarios. The subjective theory of contract interpretation posits that the ultimate goal of a court should be to enforce the actual, mutual agreement that the parties intended to make, not just the imperfect words they used to record it. If there is compelling outside evidence—such as emails, prior drafts, or negotiation transcripts—showing that the written text contains a clear mistake and does not reflect the true mutual understanding, courts must have the flexibility to consider this evidence. To blindly enforce a typographical error simply because it is written down is to elevate form over substance. The law should serve justice, and it is fundamentally unjust to force a party to abide by a term that neither side actually agreed to.

Based on the principles outlined in Passage A, how would the author of Passage A most likely respond to the assertion in Passage B that courts should consider "emails, prior drafts, or negotiation transcripts"?