When language can be understood by a reasonable person in more than one way, there is ambiguity. It is not the use of particular words or common words used in any particular sense. Words are ambiguous when their meaning is unclear to people with knowledge and skills competent to understand them. Although real estate agents, title companies, lawyers and anyone else who drafts contracts may aim for perfection in their drafting, it is not uncommon for the finished product to contain an ambiguous provision. Such ambiguity can result from a poor choice of words or an „honest mistake” made during the design process. Of course, the best way to avoid the interpretation of a contract being in the hands of a judge is to create a contract that fits the saying „say what you want to say and what you say”. If you don`t, you run the risk that your contract won`t be interpreted as meaning what you meant when you signed it. There are two categories of ambiguities: latent and patent. Latent ambiguity occurs when the language used is clear and understandable, so that it suggests meaning, but an extrinsic fact or proof creates a need for interpretation or a choice between two or more possible meanings. In a classic case, Raffles v. Wichelhaus, 159 Eng. Rep. 375 (e.g.

1864), a contract was signed for the sale of 125 bales of cotton to arrive on a ship called Peerless from Bombay, India. Unbeknownst to the Contracting Parties, two ships of the same name should arrive from the same port in different months of the same year. This foreign fact required the interpretation of an otherwise clear and unambiguous contractual term. In such cases, extrinsic or parol Evidence may be accepted to explain what was meant or to identify the property referred to in writing. According to Black`s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), „a contract or a provision of a contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably likely to be subject to more than one interpretation or interpretation.” When disputes arise over the meaning of a contract or a provision of a contract, it is not uncommon for the parties to disagree not only on what this means, but also on whether there is ambiguity. The reason for this is that a court interpreting a contract must first determine whether the contractual wording in question can be interpreted in several ways. Only if the court answers this question in the affirmative can it proceed to the next step in deciding how to interpret it. n.

when the language has more than one meaning. If the ambiguity is obvious, it is called a „patent”, and if there is a hidden ambiguity, it is called „latent”. If there is ambiguity and the original author cannot explain it effectively, then the ambiguity is decided in the light most favorable to the other party. Ambiguity means that language has more than one meaning in an agreement. Cases like this one from New York explain that ambiguity in the context of a contract is defined as „if a reasonably intelligent person who examines the contract objectively could interpret the language in more than one way.” If a contract is ambiguous, courts may use external evidence to determine the parties` original intention to understand the meaning of the language of a contract. doubts; duality of meaning; Indistinction or uncertainty of the meaning of an expression used in a written instrument. Ninrlle v. State Bank, 13 Neb. 245, 13 N. W. 275; Ellmaker vs. Ellmaker, 4 Watt (I`a.) 89; Kraner vs.

Ilalsey, 82 Cal. 209, 22 Pac. 1137; Station vs. Epsy, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 447. Ambiguity can be latent or patented. It is the first in which the language used is clear and understandable and suggests only a single meaning, but an extrinsic fact or irrelevant evidence creates a need for interpretation or a choice between two or more possible meanings. But an obvious ambiguity is that which appears on the front of the instrument and results from the erroneous, obscure or unreasonable language.

Carter v. Holman, 60 MB. 504; Brown vs. Guice, 46 Miss 302; Stokeley v. Gordon, 8 billion 505; Chambers v. Iiingstaff, 09 Ala. 140; Hawkins vs. Garland, 76 Va. 152, 44 Am.

158th representative; Hand v. Hoffman, 8 N. J. Law, p. 71; Ives vs. Kimball, 1. I 313; Palmer vs. Albee, 50 Iowa, 431; Petrie v. Hamilton College, 158 N.

Y. 458, 53 N. E. 216. Synonyms. The ambiguity of language must be distinguished from incomprehensibility and inaccuracy, because words can only be called ambiguous if their meaning seems dubious and uncertain to people with skills and knowledge competent to understand them. History, Kontr. 272. The concept of `ambiguity` does not include mere inaccuracy or uncertainty resulting from the use of particular words or common words in a particular sense. Wig.

Wills, page 174 Ambiguity can be obvious or latent. This Case from Texas explains that patent ambiguity occurs when the language of the document itself has more than one meaning, while latent ambiguity is not easily visible, but occurs when unambiguous language is applied to the subject it deals with, and ambiguity occurs due to certain external circumstances. For latent ambiguity, parol proof can be used to understand the true intent of the parties as expressed in the agreement, thus understanding the language of latent ambiguity. In contract law, ambiguity means more than that language has more than one meaning that reasonable people might disagree with. This means that after a court has applied rules of interpretation such as simple meaning, course of business, enforcement process or rules of business habit with unclear terms, the court still cannot say with certainty what meaning the parties intended. In this case, the court will allow as irrelevant evidence for previous or competing agreements to determine the meaning of the ambiguous language. Parol proofs can be used to explain the meaning of a font as long as its use does not vary the terms of the script. In the absence of such evidence, the court may hear evidence of subjective intent or understanding of the parties to clarify the ambiguity.

In constitutional law, laws containing ambiguous wording are null and void because of their vagueness. The wording of these laws is considered so obscure and uncertain that a reasonable person cannot determine from a reading what the law purports to command or prohibit. This legal ambiguity deprives a person of the obligation to notify due process and thus renders the law unconstitutional.