A blatant ambiguity is an ambiguity that appears on the front of a document or font because uncertain or obscure language has been used. 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. 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 property law, a distinction is made 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. There are two categories of ambiguity: latent and patent. Latent ambiguity occurs when the language used is clear and intelligible, so that it suggests meaning, but an extrinsic fact or evidence 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 (ex 1864), a contract was made 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 must arrive from the same port in different months of the same year. This extraneous fact required the interpretation of an otherwise clear and precise contractual term. In such cases, extrinsic or parol evidence may be admitted to explain what was meant or to identify the assets mentioned in the letter. Ambiguity means that language has more than one meaning in an agreement.

Cases such as this one from New York explain that ambiguity in the context of a contract is defined as “if a reasonably intelligent person who objectively examines the contract can interpret the language in more than one way.” When a contract is ambiguous, courts may use external evidence to determine the parties` original intention to understand the meaning of the language in a contract. Ambiguity can be patented or latent. This Texas case explains that patent ambiguity occurs when the language in the document itself has more than one meaning, while latent ambiguity is not easily visible, but occurs when language that is unique is applied to the object it is dealing with, and ambiguity occurs due to certain external circumstances. In latent ambiguity, parol evidence can be used to understand the true intention of the parties as expressed in the agreement, thus understanding the language of latent ambiguity. n. when 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 an ambiguity and the original author cannot explain it effectively, the ambiguity is decided in the light that is most favorable to the other party. Doubt; duplicity of meaning; Lack of clarity or uncertainty as to the meaning of an expression used in a written instrument. Ninrlle v. State Bank, 13 Neb. 245, 13 N.

W. 275; Ellmaker v. Ellmaker, 4 watts (A.I.) 89; Kraner v. Ilalsey, 82 Cal. 209, 22 Pac. 1137; Ward v. Epsy, 6 Humph. (Tennessee) 447. An ambiguity can be latent or obvious. In the first case, the language used is clear and understandable and suggests only one meaning, but an external fact or 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 imperfect, obscure or insensitive language. Carter v. Holman, 60 MB. 504; Braun v. Guice, 46 Miss. 302; Stokeley v. Gordon, 8 B. 505; Kammern v. Iiingstaff, 09 Ala. 140; Hawkins v.

Garlande, 76 Va. 152, 44 Am. 158; Hand v. Hoffman, 8 N. J. Law, 71; Ives v. Kimball, 1 Mich. 313; Palmer v. Albee, 50 Iowa, 431; Petrie v.

Hamilton College, 158 N. Y. 458, 53 N. E. 216. Synonym. The ambiguity of language must be distinguished from incomprehensibility and imprecision, because words can only be called ambiguous if their meaning seems doubtful and unsafe to people with the skills and knowledge to understand them. Ererzähl, contr. 272. The concept of `ambiguity` does not cover mere inaccuracies or uncertainties resulting from the use of particular terms or common words in a particular sense.

Wig. Wills, page 174 When language can be understood by a reasonable person in more than one way, ambiguity exists. 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. 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. [6] 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),[7] 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),[8] 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. [9] In contract law, ambiguity means more than language with more than one meaning in which reasonable people may 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.