Editing Contracts/Contra proferentem

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Contracts/''Contra proferentem''}}{{:Contracts/TOC}}{{Breadcrumb|parent_page=Contracts|alias={{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
'''''Contra proferentem''''' (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),<ref name="bld">{{cite book|title=[[Black's Law Dictionary]]|edition=9th|editor-last1=Garner|editor-first1=Bryan A.|editor-link1=Bryan A. Garner |first=Henry C. |last=Black |authorlink=Henry Campbell Black |location=St. Paul, MN |publisher=[[West Publishing]] |year=2009 |type=Print. |isbn=0-314-19949-7}}</ref> also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a [[Legal doctrine|doctrine]] of [[contract]]ual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or [[contractual term|term]] is [[ambiguity|ambiguous]], the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.<ref name="r2d206">{{cite book|last=American Law Institute|title=Restatement (Second) of Contracts|year=1981|publisher=American Law Institute Publishers|location=St. Paul, Minnesota|volume=2|chapter=The Scope of Contractual Obligations|at=§ 206|ref=harv}}</ref> The doctrine is often applied to situations involving standardized contracts or where the parties are of unequal [[bargaining power]], but is applicable to other cases.<ref>{{harv|American Law Institute|1981|loc=§ 206, cmt. a}}</ref> The doctrine is not, however, directly applicable to situations where the language at issue is mandated by law, as is often the case with [[insurance contract]]s and [[bill of lading|bills of lading]].<ref>{{harv|American Law Institute|1981|loc=§ 206, cmt. b}}</ref>

The reasoning behind this rule is to encourage the drafter of a contract to be as clear and explicit as possible and to take into account as many foreseeable situations as it can.
University of keele v price Waterhouse case reflects the contra proferentum rule applied against the defender who tried get out of a unclear clause.

Additionally, the rule reflects the court's inherent dislike of [[Standard form contract|standard-form take-it-or-leave-it contracts]] also known as contracts of adhesion (e.g., standard form insurance contracts for individual [[consumer]]s, residential leases, etc.). The [[court]] perceives such contracts to be the product of bargaining between parties in unfair or uneven positions. To mitigate this perceived unfairness, [[legal system]]s apply the doctrine of ''contra proferentem''; giving the benefit of any doubt in favor of the party upon whom the contract was foisted.

''Contra proferentem'' also places the cost of losses on the party who was in the best position to avoid the harm. This is generally the person who drafted the [[contract]]. An example of this is the insurance contract mentioned above, which is a good example of an adhesion contract. There, the insurance company is the party completely in control of the terms of the contract and is generally in a better position to, for example, avoid contractual forfeiture. This is a longstanding principle: see, for example, [[California Civil Code]] §1654 (“In cases of uncertainty ... the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist"), which was enacted in 1872. Numerous other states have codified the rule as well.

The principle is codified in international instruments such as the [[UNIDROIT]] Principles and the [[Principles of European Contract Law]].

The principle is codified into United Kingdom law with respect to consumer contracts, under Section 69 of the [[Consumer Rights Act 2015]], which states "''If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail''". <ref>{{cite web |title=Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/69/enacted |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archives |accessdate=17 June 2019}}</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
* [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2008/2127.html ''Oxonica Energy Ltd v Neuftec Ltd (2008) EWHC 2127 (Pat)''], items 88-93 (example where the ''contra proferentem'' principle was "not adequate enough to supply the answer to the case", with a discussion of the origin of the maxim)
* Péter Cserne, [http://works.bepress.com/peter_cserne/28/ ''Policy Considerations In Contract Interpretation: The Contra Proferentem Rule From a Comparative Law and Economics Perspective''], Hungarian Association for Law and Economics, 2007 ([http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=peter_cserne pdf]) (including a list of references relating to the ''contra proferentem'' principle)