The Ombudsman considers that the scope of the review he can carry out in cases concerning the interpretation of contractual obligations entered into by an institution is necessarily limited. In particular, the Ombudsman is of the view that he should not seek to determine whether there has been a breach of contract by either party. This question could be dealt with effectively only by a court of competent jurisdiction, which would have the possibility to hear the arguments of the parties concerning the relevant national law and to evaluate conflicting evidence on any disputed issues of fact. The Ombudsman, therefore, takes the view that, in cases concerning contractual disputes, it is justified to limit his inquiries to examining whether the institution has provided him with a coherent and reasonable account of the legal basis for its actions, and why it believes that its view of the contractual position is justified. If that is the case, the Ombudsman will conclude that his inquiry has not revealed an instance of maladministration. This conclusion will not affect the right of the parties to have their contractual dispute examined and authoritatively settled by a court of competent jurisdiction.