See also:law an
See also:ambiguity as to the meaning of the words of a written instrument may be of considerable importance . Ambiguity, in law, is of two kinds, patent and latent . (I) Patent ambiguity is that ambiguity which is apparent on the
See also:face of an instrument to any one perusing it, even if he be unacquainted with the circumstances of the parties . In the case of a patent ambiguity parol evidence is admissible to explain only what has been written, not what it was intended to write . For example, in Saunderson v .
See also:Piper, 1839, 5 B.N.C . 425, where a
See also:bill was
See also:drawn in figures for £245 and in words for two
See also:hundred pounds, evidence that " and
See also:forty-five " had been omitted by
See also:mistake was rejected . But where it appears from the general context of the instrument what the parties really meant, the instrument will be construed as if there was no ambiguity, as in Saye and Sele's case, to Mod . 46, where the name of the grantor had been omitted in the operative
See also:part of a
See also:grant, but, as it was clear from another part of the grant who he was, the deed was held to be valid . (2) Latent ambiguity is where the wording of an instrument is on the face of it clear and intelligible, but may, at the same
See also:time, apply equally to two different things or subject matters, as where a
See also:legacy is given to my
See also:John," and the testator is shown to have two nephews of that name . A latent ambiguity may be explained by parol evidence, for, as the ambiguity has been brought about by circumstances 'extraneous to the instrument, the explanation must necessarily be sought for from such circumstances .
There are no comments yet for this article.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.