Agreement Is Ambiguous On Its Face

In most jurisdictions, too, ambiguous treaties must be terminated “against” the party that drafted the treaty. The party who did not write the contract will sometimes have the benefit of the doubt about the ambiguities. This is because the party that designed the treaty may have more knowledge and bargaining power than the other. There are ambiguities in contractual terms when, after applying the rules or instruments of interpretation, the court cannot make sense of the language used in an agreement or document. The clear rule is often applied by court to determine whether a contract is ambiguous. If the contract is clear and unequivocal to the judge, there is no need for parol evidence. However, if a writing is ambiguous, the Parol proof is permitted only to illuminate the instrument in the written form, not to vary. A contract is considered ambiguous if the contract is reasonably subject to more than one interpretation. Sometimes this may mean that we do not know what the parties as a whole intended to do. But as a general rule, an ambiguous contract means that a particular term, word, expression or definition is vague or obscure. The main elements of a contract are the contracting parties, the formal purpose, the legal review, the reciprocity of the agreement and the reciprocity of the undertaking.

Mallory v Detroit, 181 Mich App 121, 127 (1989). The only contractual cases dealing with the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence are those dealing with oral contracts, contract prevention, modification of existing contracts, waiver of contract duration and contract reform. Stein v Home-Owners Ins Co, 303 Mich App 382, 390 (2013) In cases “where a party only attempts to prove that an explicit condition in a written contract has actually occurred,” the burden of proof is the weight of evidence. Id. at 390-391. The method of interpreting a document may be a two-step process in which a judge decides the question of the law (is there a question of ambiguity?), and a jury decides the question of the facts (how should the contract be interpreted?).