Ambiguity occurs when a single word or sentence can be interpreted in two or more ways. As these are often long and complex texts in law, ambiguity is common. For example, the courts have developed various doctrines to deal with cases in which legal texts are ambiguous. You can eliminate uncertainty about the beginning or end of a period by clearly indicating the first and last days of that period. DO NOT SAY: From July 1, 19___ to June 30, 19___. SAY: After June 30, June 19___ and before July 1, July 19___. If a period is measured in whole days, use the word “day” instead of “time.” A reader may interpret the word “time” to mean an exact time during the day or night an event occurs. DO NOT SAY: Thirty days after the time when. SAY: Thirty days after the day when. Avoid using time-related words like “now,” “present,” and “current” in your bylaws. The use of these words to associate a provision of your regulation at the time the regulation comes into force creates ambiguity. It is not clear whether the provision of the regulation should change if the “current” fact changes after the regulation comes into force. DON`T SAY: The mayor of the District of Columbia is eligible for equal pay as a GS-15, Level 2, as now required by law.
[You know what the mayor`s salary is on the day the ordinance comes into effect, but what salary does the mayor receive if Congress changes the rate of pay for a GS-15 a week, a month, or a year after the ordinance comes into effect?] In the example above, if you intend the provision to remain unchanged after the regulation comes into force, it is best to determine what the provision would look like on the date the regulation comes into force and write that specific provision in your regulation. SAY: The mayor of the District of Columbia is entitled to a salary of ___ However, if you intend to change the determination over time, clarify this fact. SAY: The Mayor of the District of Columbia is entitled to equal pay as GS-15, Level 2. The GS-15 salary, level 2, will be adjusted by Congress. 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. Exceptions are when a contract written by fraud, error or coincidence does not express the real intention of the parties and in such cases, this intention must be taken into account and the erroneous parts of the letter are not taken into account. Otherwise, an integration clause will usually prevent either party from making pre-contractual statements or negotiations to modify, contradict or even supplement the written agreement.
Despite the ambiguity inherent in the phrase “and/or,” I see it often used in the legal literature. Sometimes it is also used when there should be an “and” or an “or” because the context indicates that the intention should be conjunctive or disjunctive, but not both. It is important to avoid ambiguities as much as possible, especially since some ambiguities can reinforce each other. For example, imagine if I offered to pay you $100 to cut down the largest of my trees, which is alive and/or dead. Similar problems occur when you specify an age requirement. The term “over 21 years of age” has two possible meanings. A person may be “over 21 years of age” on their 21st birthday or 22nd birthday. Depending on the meaning you intend to give, clarify the ambiguity as follows: DO NOT SAY: A person over 21 years of age.
SAY: A person who is 21 years of age or older. unless you mean a person who is 22 years of age or older. DO NOT SAY: Between 16 and 20 years old. SAY: Sixteen years or older and under 21 years of age. The issue of ambiguity in contracts is old and is often heard by the courts. Ideally, the parties use clear and concise terms and without possible ambiguities. But in the usual situation, where terms can be interpreted in various ways, courts have developed rules of interpretation that are applied when the terms are considered ambiguous by the court. The ambiguity of the legislation leads to confusion and misunderstandings. Sometimes comes the ambiguity of conflicts between the intended relationship of the author of the words and the perceived relationship of the reader to these words.
At other times, the ambiguity arises from the fact that the author has not clearly defined the important terms. This paper examines (i) the reasons for ambiguity in the drafting of legislation, as well as some of the problems that may arise from that ambiguity, and (ii) provides strategies to avoid ambiguity in the drafting of legislation, including the use of mathematical set theory to study potentially ambiguous sentences. 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. But for treaties that don`t provide adequate language, California`s Civil Code has a set of laws that provide methods to resolve possible ambiguities. If either party has communicated to the other party that the terms are ambiguous, the parties may attempt to resolve the ambiguous terms. However, if the parties fail to reach an agreement between them, one of the parties may bring a dispute against the other party for infringement if the defendant fails to perform the contract. Patent ambiguity is the ambiguity that is evident on the front of an instrument to anyone who reads it, even if they are not familiar with the situation of the parties. [6] In the case of patent ambiguity, it is permissible for the pararse evidence to explain only what was written, not what the author intended to write.