There are two types of ambiguities: latent and patent. Latent ambiguity refers to an ambiguity that does not occur easily in the language of a document, but arises from a minor issue when the terms of the document are applied or executed. For example, if a man invents goods to his cousin A B, and he has two cousins of that name. This is also called extrinsic ambiguity. On the other hand, obvious 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 be drawn for “two fifty dollars”, but in figures for $215, it is an obvious ambiguity. If there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation between the parties, a court will usually allow the parties to rewrite the contract to remove the ambiguity. When interpreting the contract, a court may use the following to understand the intentions of the parties: suitability is another important factor to consider. Would a reasonable person conclude that the term meant something? Or would someone conclude that it meant what the other party intended to do? 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. In property law, a distinction is made between patent ambiguity and latent ambiguity. The two forms of ambiguity differ in two ways: (1) which led to the existence of ambiguity; and (2) the type of evidence base that may be permitted to resolve the problem. There are two categories of ambiguities: latent and patent. Latent ambiguity occurs when the language used is clear and understandable, so that it suggests meaning, but an extrinsic fact or proof 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 signed for the sale of 125 bales of cotton to arrive on a ship called Peerless sailing from Bombay, India. Unbeknownst to the Contracting Parties, two ships of the same name should arrive from the same port in different months of the same year. This foreign fact required the interpretation of an otherwise clear and unambiguous contractual term.
In such cases, extrinsic EVIDENCE or PAROL may be allowed to explain what was meant or to identify the property referred to in writing. Latent ambiguity exists when the wording of an instrument is clear and comprehensible at first glance, but can at the same time also apply to two different things or subjects, for example when an inheritance is given to “my nephew John” and the testator obviously has two nephews of that name. Latent ambiguity can be explained by pararse evidence: the ambiguity was caused by circumstances unrelated to the instrument, so that the explanation must necessarily be sought in such circumstances.  In CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, laws containing ambiguous wording are VOID FOR THE SAKE OF VAGUENESS. The wording of these laws is considered so obscure and uncertain that a reasonable person cannot determine from a reading what the law purports to command or prohibit. This legal ambiguity deprives a person of the requirement to dismiss a PROPER TRIAL AND THUS RENDERS THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Courts often interpret an ambiguous contractual clause against the interests of the party who prepared the contract and created the ambiguity. This is common in membership contracts and insurance contracts. The author of a document should not profit at the expense of an innocent party because the author was negligent in drafting the agreement. n. when the 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 ambiguity and the original author cannot explain it effectively, then the ambiguity is decided in the light most favorable to the other party. In contract law, ambiguity means more than that language has more than one meaning that reasonable people might disagree with. This means that after a court has applied rules of interpretation such as clear meaning, the course of business, performance or commercial use rules with unclear terms, the court still cannot say with certainty what meaning the parties intended. In this case, the court will allow as irrelevant evidence for previous or competing agreements to determine the meaning of the ambiguous language. Parol proofs can be used to explain the meaning of a font as long as its use does not vary the terms of the script. In the absence of such evidence, the court may hear evidence of the subjective intention or understanding of the parties to clarify the ambiguity […].