Hello Peter,

I'm not sure how to read your question. There are certain principles in English law which govern interpretation of contracts. They relate essentially to express/implied terms. This PDF guide by Ashurts guide is helpful.

https://www.ashurst.com/publication-techguide.aspx?id_Conten...

"Interpretation of Contracts under English Law (July 2012)"

You will see that the term "construe" is used twice in that document.

For "interpretation", see : http://thelawdictionary.org/interpretation/
For "construe", see : http://thelawdictionary.org/construe/

Curzon's Dictionary of Law gives:-

- construe : to discover and apply the meaning of a written instrucment. See construction.

- construction : the process of construing (i.e. discovering and applying the meaning of) written instruments e.g., by resolving certain ambiguities and other uncertainties. Often used synonyously with "interpretation":
Chatenay v Brazilian Submarine Telegraph Co [1981] 1 QB 79. See Francklin v A-G [1974] QB 185.

- rules of cosntruction : Decisions of the courts relating to the interpretation of documents... There follows are list of cases as authority for a number of principles, including : the meaning of a document must be sought for in the document itself, the intention may prevail over the words used, words are to be taken in their literal meaning, etc.

According to my Oxford Dictionary of Law, the entery on "interpretation" reads thus:

- interpretation (construction): the process of determining the true meaning of a legal document. It is a judicial process, effected in accordance with a number of rules and presumptions. So far as is relevant, the rules nd presumptions applicable to Acts of Parliament (see Interpretation of statutes) apply equally to private documents, such as deeds and wills.

That other entry is lengthy and refers to rules such as the literal rule, the golden rule, the ejusdem generis rule.

I've gone beyond what you have required but it comes down to the fact under English law, the term "interpret" obeys a set of fairly well established rules. The term "construe" in which one easily reads "construction" has a wider meaning. There are sources which indicate that when construing, one should avoid interpretation. They are different but are often sued synonymously.

To answer you question more completely, your question would need to be more specific.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2015-09-14 18:41:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

often "used" (not "sued") synonymously.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2015-09-15 08:31:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

You're welcome. It generally comes down to how the terms are used in context and they are of course often used interchangeably. so that in practical terms, there is little difference. Both are about how the texts in question are to be read and understood. There is a body of case law and a number of well established legal principles on the subject and which assist in determining how these terms are to be read.

However, I'm a little worried that you are confusing legal rules of interpretation (in the legaal sense) and how the term is to be read in the field of translating nd interpreting. They are quite diferent. If you confuse them, you will be missing the point altogether.

I do not see how you arrive at a conclusion (discussion psot) that "to perform" can translate the verb "interpréter" and "to construe" can mean "to translate orally". In legalese, "interpret" and "construe" describe ways of reading and understanding. They have nothing whatsoever, but nothing at all, to do with the "interpret" in the field of translation and interpreting as a linguist.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2015-09-15 08:37:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

A client will look for the services of a translator or an interpreter to translate (texts) or to interpret (oral).
Legal beagles will use the rules of interpretation in order to understand what intention lies behind the writings of the legislator or other legal texts, including contracts and so on, for example.
In either case, "to construe" from "construct" will still describe how the text is assembled and "to interpret" will still have the meaning (for the written form too) of how an original is to be understood.