The terms of the contract are the agreements that parties agree to be bound to but discovering what constitutes the terms is not always straightforward.

In the case of oral contracts the courts take a look at what was agreed between the parties (Smith v Hughes (1871) while for written contracts the courts look objectively at what is in the contractual document (Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009]).

Part of that objective view means not taking into account external evidence of what the parties thought the interpretation of the contract ought to be (parol evidence rule) but there are a few exceptions to this:
where the contract is both written and oral; Walker Property Investments (Brighton) Ltd v Walker (1947)
if evidence proves a custom or trade usage
where the contract is yet to take legal effect; Pym v Campbell (1856)
cases of common mistake

The objective test was best summarised by Lord Steyn in Sirius International Insurance Co v FAI General Insurance Ltd [2005] when he said:
“the question is what a reasonable person, circumstanced as the actual parties were, would have understood the parties to have meant by the use of specific language. The answer to that question is to be gathered from the text under consideration and its relevant contextual scene.”

This 'contextual scene' is important and can often mean looking at what the commercial practice is within a given sector or industry (AIB Group plc v Martin [2001]).

If there is a discrepancy, the main contract will take precedence over small print (The Starsin [2003]).

In the absence of much or any commercial context the courts will take a more literal approach to the wording in the contract (Arnold v Britton [2015]).

Terms of a contract must be distinguished from representations as innocent representations do not offer any legal recourse. Telling the difference can be hard but the courts will take a number of factors into account:
Was the representation a part of the contract (Bannerman v White (1861)) or simply part of preliminary negotiations (Routledge v McKay [1954])?
While not essential (Birch v Paramount Estates Ltd (1956)), putting a representation down in writing indicates an intention to be bound
if the representor had special knowledge or expertise, their statements are more likely to be considered a part of the contract (Harding v Eddy [1951])

There may also be some circumstances where the courts do not see an agreement between the parties as either a term or a representation but rather a collateral contract that is separate but linked to the main contract (City and Westminster Properties Ltd v Mudd [1959].