Short answer. Yes. Rule 130, Section 14 allows the circumstances under which an instrument was made, including the situation of its subject matter and of the parties, to be shown for its proper construction, so the judge can be placed in the position of those whose language is being interpreted.
What the law says
For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he or she is to interpret.
Rule 130, Section 14 — Interpretation according to circumstances. Read the full provision →
Context is admissible for proper construction
Section 14 permits evidence of the circumstances surrounding the making of an instrument — not to change its written terms, but to aid in properly construing them. The provision recognizes that words on a page are written by people situated in a particular context, and understanding that context helps interpret what they meant. This does not open the door to rewriting clear terms based on outside circumstances; it supplements interpretation of language that genuinely needs context to be properly understood.
What kind of circumstances are relevant
The rule specifically mentions the situation of the subject matter of the instrument and the situation of the parties to it. These are the practical realities — what was being dealt with, and who the parties were and their circumstances — that shaped how the language of the document would have been understood at the time. A court might look at the nature of the property involved, the business relationship between the parties, or the events leading up to the signing, so long as that evidence explains the language rather than replaces it.
The purpose: standing in the writer's shoes
The rule states its own goal directly: showing the circumstances lets the judge be placed in the position of those whose language he or she is to interpret. Rather than reading the instrument in the abstract, the judge interprets it as it would have been understood by the people who actually wrote and used that language, at the time and in the setting in which they wrote it, rather than through hindsight or a purely modern reading of the same words.
Where this evidence stops short
Section 14 is a tool for construction, not a license to contradict or override language that is already clear and unambiguous on its face. Surrounding circumstances help a court choose between genuinely competing readings of ambiguous language, or fill out the meaning of terms that only make sense in light of context; they are not a route for a party to introduce an entirely different agreement than the one the document itself actually states.