As a professional, I know how important it is to understand the technicalities of legal terms and concepts. One such concept that often arises in legal disputes is the distinction between a “question of law” and a “question of fact,” particularly when it comes to contract interpretation.

Simply put, a question of law refers to the interpretation or application of legal principles, while a question of fact concerns the determination of what actually happened in a particular situation. When it comes to contract interpretation, these two types of questions often intersect.

In many cases, the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, and the parties involved can easily agree on their meaning and intent. However, when there is a disagreement or dispute over the interpretation of a contract, it becomes important to determine whether the issue at hand is a question of law or a question of fact.

In general, questions of law are decided by a judge, while questions of fact are decided by a jury (or by the judge, in cases where a jury is not present). This is because questions of law involve the application of legal principles, which are within the purview of the judge to decide, while questions of fact are more subjective and require a determination of the facts surrounding the situation.

For example, if there is a dispute over whether a particular provision in a contract is enforceable, that would likely be considered a question of law. A judge would need to review the language of the contract, as well as relevant legal precedents and statutes, to make a determination.

On the other hand, if there is a dispute over whether one of the parties actually fulfilled their obligations under the contract, that would likely be considered a question of fact. A jury would need to hear evidence from both sides and make a determination based on the factual circumstances of the case.

It is worth noting that there are some situations where questions of law and questions of fact may overlap. For example, if there is a dispute over whether a particular term in a contract is ambiguous, that may require both a determination of the facts surrounding the situation (e.g. the context in which the term was used) and an application of legal principles (e.g. the rules of contract interpretation).

Ultimately, the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact can be complex, and may depend on the specific circumstances of each case. However, understanding this distinction is essential for anyone involved in contract interpretation and legal disputes more broadly.