As Conflicts over a text's meaning are inevitable, interpretation is unavoidable. Interpretation is not choosing one reading of the text and rejecting others but encountering different readings of a text. The question is whether every reading produces an independent meaning or whether different readings cover only one meaning. This issue is studied under two titles, "Statism of Meaning" (SM) and "Dynamism of Meaning" (DM). Under SM, two approaches are studied based on literal meaning and the author's intent. Under DM, four methods are analyzed: communication of text and the interpreter, text-centered, use-centered, and free of limits. Iranian contract law considers parties' common intention as contract meaning, so this legal system follows SM (author's intent). However, the English Legal system has experienced three different periods of contract interpretation: In the traditional period, literal meaning was the central concept, in the modern period, context was the pivotal point, and currently, a balance between context and text is essential. Although both legal systems are based on SM, Iranian SM is subjective, while English SM is objective. Also, unlike Iran, English law, as a practical system that prefers utility, is not fully compatible with any of the approaches above.