31 The most important question, as both the learned Magistrate and learned Commissioner realised, was the construction of cl 3(a). The cornerstone of the submission on behalf of the respondent is that the appellant, itself, as owner, has indemnified the renter. That is, the appellant is personally liable. If the owner has not given such an indemnity then it is clear and it is accepted that there could be no insurance cover within the meaning of the Act. The agreement could possibly give rise to a number of meanings, but the essential question is, what was the intention of the parties? The fundamental rule of interpretation for deeds, as for all instruments, is that to interpret a deed the expressed intention of the parties must be discovered. It must be discovered from the words the parties have used and from the whole of the document. This is clear from the old texts and is the law in Australia (see Norton on Deeds, 50 (2nd ex), 6 Halsbury's Laws of Australia, para 110-2235 onwards). What must be ascertained is the intention of the parties who actually entered into the agreement, namely the appellant and Mr Perraton. It must, in the first instance, be ascertained objectively from the words the parties used.