Contracts/Contra proferentem: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
en>Mendaliv
(rewriting lede and stripping out some parts; a lot of this is unreferenced and needs to go though, tagged)
en>ChrisGualtieri
m (General Fixes using AWB)
Line 3: Line 3:
{{Contract law}}
{{Contract law}}


'''''Contra proferentem''''' ([[Latin language|Latin]]: "against [the] offeror"),<ref name="bld">{{cite book|title=[[Black's Law Dictionary]]|year=2009|edition=9th|editor-last=Garner|editor-first=Bryan A.|editorlink=Bryan A. Garner|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> However, the doctrine is not 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>
'''''Contra proferentem''''' ([[Latin language|Latin]]: "against [the] offeror"),<ref name="bld">{{cite book|title=[[Black's Law Dictionary]]|year=2009|edition=9th|editor-last=Garner|editor-first=Bryan A.|editor-link=Bryan A. Garner|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> However, the doctrine is not 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.
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.


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|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 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.  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 [[Contractual Term|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, although this application is disfavored.
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.  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 [[Contractual Term|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, 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.
''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.

Revision as of 18:24, October 20, 2013

Template:Italic title

Page Module:Message box/ambox.css has no content.

Template:Contract law

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.[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] However, the doctrine is not 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.

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, 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

  1. ↑  (2009).Black's Law Dictionary.
  2. ↑ American Law Institute, (1981).Restatement (Second) of Contracts. 2. St. Paul, Minnesota: American Law Institute Publishers.
  3. ↑ Template:Harv
  4. ↑ Template:Harv

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Contracts/Contra_proferentem&oldid=35455"