Content area
Full text
"The law is a profession of words."1 By means of words contracts are created, statutes are enacted, and constitutions come into existence. Yet, in spite of all good intentions, the meanings of the words found in documents are not always clear and unequivocal. They may be capable of being understood in more ways than one, they may be doubtful or uncertain, and they may lend themselves to various interpretations by different individuals. When differences in understanding are irresolvable, the parties having an interest in what is meant may end up in litigation and ask the court to come up with its interpretation. In the eyes of the law, when this kind of situation arises, the contract or the legislative act contains "ambiguity."
Paradoxically enough, the word ambiguity itself has more than one interpretation. One of the senses, what I call the general meaning, has to do with how language is used by speakers or writers and understood by listeners or readers. Ambiguity occurs where there is lack of clarity or when there is uncertainty about the application of a term. It is this sense of ambiguity that generally is meant within the law. The other sense, the restricted meaning, is concerned with certain lexical and grammatical properties that are part of the very fabric of language, irrespective of anyone's usage or understanding. A word may have multiple definitions or a group of words may partake of more than one grammatical parsing. Linguists and grammarians have extensively investigated these features of language.
I shall analyze three court cases claimed to contain "ambiguity" or "ambiguous words." The claims are appropriate for the general meaning of these terms. Otherwise, the three cases of so-called "ambiguity" turn out to be quite different. One of them exemplifies the restricted meaning of ambiguity, whereas the other two present problems of reference and of vagueness. I shall discuss these differences of misunderstanding and show that they played a role in how the cases were decided.
I. THREE CASES WITH SO-CALLED "AMBIGUITY"
The first case, Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp.,2 got embroiled in the definition of "chicken." The buyer, a Swiss company, ordered frozen eviscerated chickens from a New York wholesaler of poultry. The order called for chickens of...