Julie Young is an experienced financial writer and editor. She specializes in financial analysis in capital planning and investment management.
Updated July 12, 2024 Reviewed by Reviewed by Erika RasureErika Rasure is globally-recognized as a leading consumer economics subject matter expert, researcher, and educator. She is a financial therapist and transformational coach, with a special interest in helping women learn how to invest.
Fact checked by Fact checked by Vikki VelasquezVikki Velasquez is a researcher and writer who has managed, coordinated, and directed various community and nonprofit organizations. She has conducted in-depth research on social and economic issues and has also revised and edited educational materials for the Greater Richmond area.
The contra proferentem rule is a legal doctrine in contract law that dictates how ambigous clauses in a contract should be interpreted. The rule stipulates that if a clause in a contract is ambiguous or can be interpreted in multiple ways, it should be read in a way that disfavors the party who originally drafted, introduced, or demanded the inclusion of that specific clause.
The contra proferentem rule guides the legal interpretation of contracts and is typically applied when a contract is challenged in court. It serves as protection against the potential misuse of contract language. It's often applied in contract disputes involving insurance companies that have refused to pay claims.
Contracts can be complex documents created after long periods of protracted negotiations. Each party in the contract is ostensibly looking out for its own best interests and will want the contract language to be to each party's favor. This can create scenarios in which the contract language is ambiguous or unclear, leading one party to interpret the contract differently from the other party.
The phrase contra proferentem in Latin translates to "against the offeror," which can be further interpreted as "guilt of the drafter." Overall, the contra proferentem rule is known for placing fault on the party who created an ambiguous clause or requested that it be included. It is designed as a caveat as well as a penalty or legal punishment for introducing and including an intentionally vague contract clause into a contract.
The underlying idea is that the drafting or introducing party is intentionally using ambiguity to create or provide results that favor their own interests. Intentional vagueness or ambiguity is an act that the contra proferentem rule seeks to mitigate and, when enforced, rules in favor of the innocent party citing the ambiguity as unfair.
Contra proferentem places fault on the party creating or introducing an ambiguous contract clause.
Courts follow a multi-step process in determining whether the contra proferentem rule should be applied in contract disputes.
Courts first determine if the contract term or clause in question is ambiguous and could potentially lead to confusion. If it is, the court's next step is to determine whether the ambiguity was intentional, crafted by the party who drafted the contract to serve their own interests. If there's clear evidence showing that the drafting party did not intend to create ambiguity, the contract is interpreted based on what the evidence indicates.
In cases where the evidence fails to clarify the ambiguity, the contra proferentem rule is applied. The court then must interpret the clause against the interests of the party responsible for its creation or inclusion, favoring the party that was not involved in its drafting.
A contract doesn't necessarily have to be in writing to be enforceable. While certain types of contracts must be written as per the statute of frauds, oral contracts are recognized and can be legally binding in some situations.
Contra proferentem can be applied to any contract where two parties have agreed to terms. It can change a contract’s interpretation or results after both parties have mutually agreed on the contract.
Any contract can be challenged for contra proferentem by filing a legal complaint in court. This is particularly common in the insurance sector, where contracts are written by insurers and then signed by policyholders. In these cases, insurers often use language that has been found ambiguous by courts, leading to interpretations that typically favor the policyholder.
Insurees are generally required to accept all the terms of an insurance contract to obtain coverage. Since these contracts are often exclusively drafted by the insurer, this gives the insurer a great deal of power and the potential to include vague or ambiguous language that may limit their requirements for paying an insurance claim.
An insuree may choose to file a contra proferentem complaint in court to challenge an insurance company's refusal to pay a claim. This filing would require court mediation and could lead to the insurance company being forced to pay the claim, if the court finds that the insurer intentionally used vague or ambiguous language in the contract to evade payment.
The contra proferentem rule is related to the Unfair Contracts Terms Act (UTCA) of 1977 which attempted to strike the use of certain clauses with different meanings.
One limitation of the rule is that it only comes into play when there is a genuine ambiguity in the contract language. If the terms of the contract are clear and explicit, the rule is not applicable. In cases where the ambiguity is not significant or is easily resolved through standard interpretative methods, courts may decide not to apply the rule even though the contract was always meant to be ambiguous.
Another limitation is the rule's applicability in different contexts and jurisdictions. In commercial contracts between sophisticated parties such as large corporations with legal expertise, courts might be less inclined to apply the rule. This is because these parties are presumed to have equal bargaining power and the capability to negotiate terms thoroughly and therefore should have been able to dictate explicit enough contract terms. It is ultimately up to different legal systems to interpret and apply the rule, leading to potential discrepancies.
Last, the rule can sometimes lead to unintended consequences. For instance, it might encourage parties to introduce deliberate ambiguities into contracts with the hope that any resulting disputes will be resolved in their favor under the rule. For example, think about a supplier deliberately including the term "reasonable delivery time" in the contract knowing it is vague. The supplier hopes that if any dispute arises over delivery delays, the ambiguity will work in their favor, especially if they can argue that their interpretation of "reasonable" aligns with industry standards.
Because contract language is sometimes meant to be up to interpretation, there can easily be misunderstandings or lack of transparency in contracts. Here are some examples of common phrases that could be ambiguous and not clear when it comes to a legal agreement.
The phrase "reasonable efforts" often falls under the contra proferentem rule because it lacks a precise definition and can be interpreted in different ways. In a contract, one party might argue that "reasonable efforts" require a significant and sustained effort to meet an obligation, while the drafting party might contend that it requires only a minimal, good-faith attempt. Think about a house painter who showed up but only painted one side of a house. An argument could be made they made a reasonable effort to paint the house, though an argument could be made they made no effort to paint three sides.
The term "as soon as possible" is another example. This phrase is inherently subjective, as what is considered possible can vary depending on circumstances, resources, and interpretations. For instance, in a service agreement, the customer might expect immediate action, while the service provider needs to wait for materials or appropriate staffing levels.
"Material breach" (or more specifically, the word material as well as the word breach on their own) is another phrase that can trigger the application of the contra proferentem rule. A "material breach" implies a substantial failure to perform under the contract. However, what constitutes "substantial" can be open to interpretation. Plus, it may not even be clear whether an actual breach has occurred. To some, a $1,000 loss may be material; in the scheme of a million-dollar contract, it may not be so important.
The phrase "best efforts" is ambiguous because it lacks a concrete definition. In a contract, one party may interpret "best efforts" as requiring the highest level of diligence and resources possible, while the drafting party might argue that it simply requires a sincere attempt within reasonable limits. For example, if a broker is not able to finalize a deal, it could easily be argued that the broker could have done more, even if the broker went above and beyond what would have normally been expected of them.
The term "substantially similar" is often used to describe conditions or criteria that need to be met, but it is inherently subjective. What one party considers substantially similar might differ significantly from the other party's perspective. For example, consider if a wedding planner falls ill the week of the event. Their contract may call for the wedding planner to provide a replacement planner "substantially similar" to them. However, this definition may vary between the wedding couple and the original planner.
Contra proferentem usually requires intermediation and ruling by a court in order for a contract’s interpretation to be changed.
The contra proferentem rule is a principle in contract law that dictates if a contract clause is unclear or open to multiple interpretations, it should be read in a way that disfavors the party responsible for its creation, introduction, or insistence. This rule comes into play during legal disputes in court to identify which party is at fault for the clause's ambiguity.
In contract disputes, courts will first check to see if a clause in the contract is unclear and could lead to confusion. If they find the contract is unclear or ambiguous, they then must examine the intent of the party who drafted it. If there's clear evidence showing no intention of creating ambiguity, the contract is interpreted based on that evidence. But, if the clause remains unclear, the contra proferentem rule is applied against the party who drafted it.
The Contra Proferentem Rule is often used in insurance industry disputes. Insurance contracts may contain vague or ambiguous language that can limit their obligations for claim payments. Policyholders can file a complaint in court under this rule to challenge an insurer's refusal to pay a claim, potentially resulting in court-ordered compensation if the clause is found to be intentionally vague or ambiguous.
The contra proferentem rule aims to provide fairness by addressing the misuse of ambiguous language in contracts, especially in the insurance sector. The rule often applies when contract terms are unclear and written in favor of the interests of the party that drafted them.
Courts must thoroughly examine a contract, first to determine if it is ambiguous or not, and then to determine the drafter's intent. If the contract is found to be intentionally ambiguous, the rule favors the non-drafting party.