{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017142857142857144, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.095652173913043, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Belize it or Not: Implied Contract Terms in Marks and Spencer V BNP Paribas

In Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas, the Supreme Court restated the law on the implication of terms in fact, rejecting the previously authoritative approach taken by Lord Hoffmann in Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd. This article examines two major departures from Belize in Lord Neuberger's leading judgment: the treatment of implication as a process separate from interpretation, and a return to the ‘traditional tests’ for the implication of terms. It argues that these are retrogressive steps in our understanding of contract terms, which risk fostering an incoherent and unprincipled approach to the law.