Word for Ambiguity in Law
If a sentence can have more than one meaning, there is ambiguity on the front of the document. Therefore, the parties involved may be able to use external evidence because the law is reasonable and allows the reader to use the same method as the author to clarify the meaning of a sentence or provision. In many cases, the evidence presented to explain patent ambiguity changes the meaning of the document and creates latent ambiguity that did not exist before. “Latent ambiguity”. Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/latent%20ambiguity. Retrieved 14 January 2022. Latent ambiguity is any type of uncertainty or doubt in a legal agreement, contract, or document that is not immediately clear.3 min spent reading The word “ambiguity” refers to an uncertainty of meaning or doubt due to the multiple meaning of a single word. In the legal sense, latent ambiguity is confusion that arises from a word or term with multiple meanings that is not clear when reading a legal document. This ambiguity usually becomes clearer when a side issue provides additional knowledge and information, according to Lord Bacon, admitting that such evidence would create the trial without an act, but the law requires that a contract or legal document be conveyed by deed. The fundamental principle on this issue would be ignored by altering the oral evidence as to what might be meant by words in a document. Patent ambiguity is the ambiguity that is obvious on the front of an act to anyone who reads it, even if he does not know the situation of the parties.
 In case of obvious ambiguity, parol evidence is admissible to explain only what was written, not what the author intended to write. For example, in Saunderson v Piper (1839), where a bill of exchange was drawn in figures greater than £245 and in words greater than two hundred pounds, the evidence that “and forty-five” had been inadvertently omitted was rejected. However, if it is clear from the general context of the document what the parties actually meant, the document is interpreted as if there were no ambiguity, as in the case of Saye and Sele (1795), where the name of the grantor was omitted from the scheme of a subsidy, but, as is clear from another part of the grant, who he was, The document was found to be valid.  Property law distinguishes between obvious and latent ambiguity. The two forms of ambiguity differ in two ways: (1) what led to the existence of the ambiguity; and (2) the type of evidence that might be admissible to resolve the issue. Ambiguity means the imprecision or uncertainty of meaning, the possibility of interpreting an expression in two or more different ways. In the context of law interpretation, ambiguity is used to indicate the doubt that a judge must have before he or she can ask for or apply a secondary meaning. In everyday language, it is often limited to situations where the same word can have two different meanings. Latent ambiguity occurs when the wording of a document is clear and understandable at first glance, but can at the same time also apply to two different things or objects, for example when a bequest is given to “my nephew John” and the testator can be proven to have two nephews of that name.
The latent ambiguity can be explained by parol evidence: the ambiguity was caused by circumstances external to the instrument, so that the explanation must necessarily be sought in such circumstances.  A court will often state the general or obvious meaning of the contract for the duration. For example, the term could be used in some way in a particular business. However, the terms and conditions in contracts can still be ambiguous. If this is the case, ambiguities are divided into overt and latent categories. External evidence can be used to eliminate confusion surrounding ambiguity that arises when reviewing the document. This type of ambiguity is called patent ambiguity. In Colpoys v. Colpo ps, Jacob 451, one party involved pointed out the confusion of this idea, stating that patent ambiguity does not require extrinsic evidence or explanations. In a written document, a patent ambiguity that must be added for clarity cannot be explained by extrinsic evidence, otherwise the document becomes invalid.
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 ordinary words used in a particular sense. Words are ambiguous when their meaning is not clear to people with competent knowledge and the ability to understand them. If latent ambiguities are present, extrinsic evidence can be used to clear up confusion, but this type of evidence cannot be used for overt ambiguities. In a will, a latent ambiguity when reviewing the document is not immediately apparent, but becomes clearer when extrinsic circumstances are taken into account. Courts often interpret an ambiguous contractual clause against the interests of the party who prepared the contract and created the ambiguity. This is common for membership contracts and insurance contracts. The author of a document should not profit from it at the expense of an innocent party because the author was negligent in drafting the agreement. There are two types of ambiguities – latent and patent. Latent ambiguity refers to ambiguity that does not occur easily in the language of a document, but arises from an ancillary issue when the terms of the document are applied or executed.
For example, if a man invents the property of his cousin A B and he has two cousins of that name. This is also known as extrinsic ambiguity. On the other hand, patent ambiguity is an ambiguity that appears clearly on the front of a document and results from the language itself. For example, a change is expressed in words to draw for “two fifty dollars,” but in the numbers for $215, this is an obvious ambiguity. In contract law, ambiguity means more than language with more than one meaning in which reasonable people might be different. This means that after a court has applied rules of interpretation such as clear meaning, course of business, history of performance or rules of commercial use with unclear terms, it still cannot say with certainty what meaning the parties intended. In this case, the court will admit as evidence extraneous evidence of prior or simultaneous agreements to determine the meaning of the ambiguous language.