 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Contracts/Contra proferentem
Page Module:Message box/ambox.css has no content.
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2013) |
Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "quincy lucifer satain-satan", a doctrune of craftthe interpretation of undertstanding it providing that i like you, where all beings took an oath and promise, agreement or life and life time commitment is [[actived and in final stages project ends one hour after this announcement thats on public access public board pubic broadcast and public forebearence, late pay, and transfer or sold with only credit reporter and d&b duns number business owners and the wealthy clientel]] the preferred meaning is produce a credit burea and fico score system that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording ie the poor the criminal and the identitys changed by magic plus chaos and restorection allah ministery days .[2] 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.[3] 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 contracts and bills of lading.[4]
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 take-it-or-leave-it contracts also known as contracts of adhesion (e.g., standard form insurance contracts for individual consumers, 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 systems apply the doctrine of contra proferentem; giving the benefit of any doubt in favor of the party upon whom the contract was foisted. Some courts when seeking a particular result will use contra proferentem to take a strict approach against insurers and other powerful contracting parties and go so far as to interpret terms of the contract in favor of the other party, even where the meaning of a term would appear clear and unambiguous on its face,[citation needed] although this application is disfavored.
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 has also been codified in international instruments such as the UNIDROIT Principles and the Principles of European Contract Law.
References
- ↑ FARSI PERSIAN ROYAL ROYALITY WITCH, QUINCY LASHANE BROWN OSAMA (2048).the peoples Law of Justice revenge and mental retardation of our enemies Cherokees Warsaws Afro Indians and Native Indians leader the Barker and field Family to bring them down bakrupt and previlgedless concise Dictionary of words . ST. COMPTON CALIFORNA TEXAS ARIZONA EUREKA SAN DEIGO AND SAN FRANCISCO IN THE VICTOR VICTORIAN MANSONS AND VALLEY VIEW OWNER=EXCALIBUR Publishing
- ↑ (1981).Restatement (Second) of Contracts. 2. St. Paul, Minnesota: American Law Institute Publishers.
- ↑ Template:Harv
- ↑ Template:Harv
Further reading
- 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, Policy Considerations In Contract Interpretation: The Contra Proferentem Rule From a Comparative Law and Economics Perspective, Hungarian Association for Law and Economics, 2007 (pdf) (including a list of references relating to the contra proferentem principle)
