Final answer:
Courts assume that a contract's ambiguous terms are intended in a legal manner unless explicitly indicated otherwise. Legal English prioritizes clear and formal language, uses precedent, and relies on judicial interpretation methods to clarify meanings. Statutory and constitutional interpretations ensure contracts are consistent with legal standards.
Step-by-step explanation:
When a contract can be interpreted in two ways, one legal and one potentially illegal, courts typically presume that the parties intended the legal interpretation unless there's clear evidence suggesting otherwise. This principle, rooted in the need to uphold the legality of agreements, ensures that contracts are enforced in a manner consistent with the law. The legal profession prioritizes precise and formal language in contracts to minimize ambiguity and prevent open-ended interpretations that could lead to disputes or judicial interpretation challenges.
Legal English aims to be consistent, complete, valid, and formal, often using precedent to guide the drafting of contracts. Lawyers also use rhetorical strategies and writing templates that are familiar to the court to make their arguments more persuasive. Ambiguities in contracts create room for multiple interpretations, and while courts recognize this, they default to an interpretation that aligns with what is legal, unless the contract explicitly indicates otherwise.
Statutory interpretation and constitutional interpretation are key frameworks that judges use to evaluate the terms of a contract related to legislative and constitutional issues respectively. Furthermore, different courts may interpret laws differently, especially when state laws also play a role. Lawyers must craft contract language that upholds state and national legal standards to avoid interpretations that could render the contract void or illegal.