The Theory of Legal Interpretation - Holmes. By Tosin Onibiyo

Reading into the theory of legal interpretation, I discovered that Holmes is trying to elaborate on how a theory of "any document purpoting to be serious and to have some legal effect has one meaning and no other, because the known object is to achieve some definite result." He further explains how it is also true every word definitely have different meanings to them and how you have to be able to use each meaning of a word in the right context of any given sentences to establish and portray the true meaning of what scenario it is being displayed. And since words in every case can be translated into different languages and meanings just by ordinary man as (Holmes have said; "Even the whole document is found to have a certain play in the joints when its words are translated into things by Parol evidence, as they have to be.") There should be a normal English speaker for such words in every case. "Thereupon we ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used." Why? Because the normal speaker of English is a "special variety... A literary form... An external to the particular writer... And a reference to him as the criterion is simply another instance of the externality of the law." In other words, the Normal English speaker will interpret things just exactly in the circumstances they were displayed and not otherwise. 

Furthermore, he uses the theory of our language (which he believes to mean one thing and no other, be it a person's name or thing) to express "contract". Saying "there is no contract when the proper name used by one party means one ship, and that used by the other means another. The mere difference of intent as such is immaterial." And in cases of contracts, according to Holmes, the wishes of two adversaries are expressed and not one. And if by any chance, the two meant two separate things and not expressing on one mind, "the latter course not only would greatly enhance the difficulty of enforcing contracts against losing parties, but would run against a plain principle of justice." He also uses the cases of statute and will to secure his argument about contract and how contracts should have definite meaning and not to have two or more meaning during legal interpretation process. 

In conclusion, Holmes theory here for example reminds me of the United State Constitution and what the framers actually intended when they all came together. Since the establishment of constitution, it has definitely struck up so much conflicts in the pasts and now and that is why our only choice is to get them interpreted by the Justices of the Court (Judicial branch of the Country) so as to reduce conflicts in our society. And more surprisingly, even Justices have different meanings to the Constitution and have decided multiple cases differently based on the same Amendments, Articles or sessions of the Constitution due to multiple meanings to each word. As a matter of fact, I believe the United States Justices have deviated so much from the actual intent of the framers due this same issue. So Holmes argument is supported by me; it would be much easier if one word in the legal world can actually have a definite meaning and interpretation to it instead of  two or more.