Certainty of Meaning in Contract Law Explained

Key Takeaways

• Certainty ensures contracts are enforceable by clearly defining rights and obligations.
• Courts may declare a contract void if key terms are vague or missing.
• Expressions of intent, incomplete agreements, or ambiguous language can undermine certainty.
• Judges interpret contracts through an objective lens, not based on subjective belief.
• Inclusion of mechanisms like severability clauses and price formulas enhances certainty.
• Contract terms must be detailed enough to guide performance and remedy disputes.

Certainty in law of contract is a principle in national and international law which holds that parties to a contract should always look to ensure that a contract is certain. If a contract is incomplete or uncertain, then it may be found to be unenforceable. An agreement doesn't create a binding contract.

Certainty Law and Legal Definition

Certainty can be defined as being free from any doubt, a state of being absolutely certain, as in the certainty of death. In terms of contract law, a contract is certain when the provisions are properly described and explained and clearly set forth.

What Makes a Contract Certain in Law?

For a contract to be legally binding, its terms must be definite and clear. Certainty of meaning in contract law requires that the agreement be specific enough for the court to enforce. This includes:

• Clear subject matter: The contract must define what is being agreed upon (e.g., goods, services, obligations).
• Identifiable parties: The involved individuals or entities must be named or identifiable.
• Unambiguous terms: Key elements like price, quantity, timeframes, and performance expectations must be spelled out.
• Objective intention to be bound: The agreement must demonstrate a mutual intention to create legal relations.

Courts often refuse to enforce agreements that rely on vague phrases like “to be agreed” or “as appropriate,” as these fail to establish enforceable obligations.

Contract Certainty? What Lessons Can Be Learned From Recent Judicial Decisions on Policy Interpretation?

It's only when there is a loss that the wording of a contract is analyzed. Contract certainty is achieved by having parties agree to the wording before formally committing to the contract. However, cases of contract interpretation still occur. How do courts interpret policy terms? There is a perception that courts interpret contracts quite literally, agonizing over every single detail. Although clear drafting is still essential, it does not correctly reflect their approach.

In 1997, through a frequently-cited English contract law case (Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v. West Bromwich Building Society), Lord Hoffman laid the groundwork for some fundamental principles for interpreting unclear wording in contracts. He determined the principles of contractual interpretation should be interpreted in the following way:

• One party's subjective understanding of the contract or any evidence of previous negotiations is unacceptable proof of what the contract means.
• Words should all be utilized in their ordinary and natural meaning.
• When interpreting a contract, understanding should be relative to a reasonable man who has all the background facts.

Judicial Approach to Ambiguous Contracts

Courts interpret contracts using an objective test—what a reasonable person would have understood from the agreement in its context. This helps prevent parties from arguing based on their private understanding or intentions.

Key judicial principles include:

• Interpretation favors enforceability: Courts strive to uphold contracts where possible by interpreting them in a way that gives meaning to the parties' intent.
• Use of contextual evidence: Judges may consider commercial context, trade customs, and the contract’s structure—but not prior negotiations or subjective intent.
• Severability clauses: Including a severability clause can save a contract even if one term is uncertain, allowing the rest to be enforced.

The Key Pressure Points: Scope of Cover

The courts believe a certain amount of flexibility and common sense should be utilized when interpreting any kind of policy wordings. Determining what losses are covered is often disputed. The noticeable lessons are to make sure:

• That the scope of cover has been clearly defined
• All parties contractually state the steps to take when a loss is created by more than one hazard
• That consistency is maintained within the terms of the cover

The limits for each peril or hazard are clearly stated, as well as total limits where a number of hazards may subsequently contribute or cause a loss. If losses were created by both flooding and windstorms, which limit should apply to each loss? Parties need to make sure they clearly state in their wordings whether limits should apply as a stack or run together.

They also need to determine whether terms are labeled as warranties or conditions precedent. This doesn't guarantee a status, but helps provide insight into the party's intent.

Avoiding Vagueness in Contract Drafting

To enhance the certainty of meaning in contract provisions, drafters should:

• Avoid open-ended phrases like “reasonable efforts” or “subject to negotiation” unless clearly defined.
• Define key terms within the contract itself or in an annex.
• Establish mechanisms for resolving uncertainty, such as:
  • Third-party valuation clauses for determining price.
  • Arbitration clauses for settling disputes over meaning.
  • Milestone-based performance indicators.

These measures allow parties to better understand their responsibilities and reduce the risk of disputes over interpretation.

The Key Pressure Points: Aggregation

Aggregation is still a significant negotiating point, causing a lot of controversy around the various wordings that are available to the market. The following terms have been judicially interpreted and defined:

• Event
  • Something that happens at a specific place and time
• Occurrence
  • Synonymous with an event, unless the situation indicates otherwise
• Cause
  • Something significantly wider
• Originating cause
  • Wider than a typical cause

Conventional property covers based on cause or event wordings are in many cases being replaced with more modern words, such as those based on a catastrophe (that hasn't been judicially identified). Remember, it's important to determine the exact coverage that's being provided, as well as making sure that the hour's clause is used logically with the terms regarding coverage.

The Key Pressure Points: Claims Cooperation/Claims Control Clauses

There is a huge difference between claims control and claims cooperation clauses. Claims control relates to situations where control still belongs to the cedant, while claims control is where the reinsurer takes over the claim. When working with claims, the responsibilities and rights of each party should be clearly identified in the contract.

It is recommended to avoid using the term "follow the settlements" clause besides any claims cooperation/control clauses. A follow clause requests the reinsurer to trust the cedant's handling of the claims. A claims cooperation/control clause hopes to confine the cedant's ability to work the claim.

Incomplete Agreements and Enforceability

An incomplete agreement may not constitute a contract if essential terms are missing. Courts may consider a contract void for uncertainty if:

• The agreement lacks a concluded price or pricing mechanism.
• There is no agreement on a start or end date.
• The duties or obligations of one or both parties are undefined.

However, if a clear intention to be bound is evident and the court can infer missing terms (e.g., using market rates or reasonable time), it may still enforce the agreement.

The Key Pressure Points: Governing Law

Laws governing policy coverage have been established in all states. Regulators negotiate with insurance providers on the behalf of consumers using the backdrop of English law. The most complicated aspect of the negotiations revolves around the sense of what the established laws provide and how they'll govern conditions precedent, good faith, and warranties.

The Role of Good Faith and Commercial Context

In determining the certainty of meaning in contract terms, courts also assess good faith dealings and the broader commercial context. Though not always explicitly required under common law, a duty of good faith may influence how vague terms are interpreted—especially in long-term or relational contracts.

Factors considered include:

• Whether the parties acted honestly and fairly.
• Whether expectations were commercially reasonable.
• Whether prior conduct aligns with the disputed interpretation.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is meant by certainty of meaning in contract law?
   It refers to the requirement that a contract's terms must be clear and definite so that a court can enforce them.
2. Can a contract be valid if some terms are unclear?
   It depends. If essential terms are uncertain or missing and the court cannot infer them, the contract may be unenforceable.
3. How do courts interpret vague terms in contracts?
   Courts use an objective approach based on how a reasonable person would understand the terms in context, rather than relying on subjective intentions.
4. What happens if the price in a contract is not agreed upon?
   If no pricing mechanism is included and the price is an essential term, the contract may be void for uncertainty—unless a court can infer a reasonable price.
5. How can parties ensure certainty in their contracts?
   By using precise language, defining key terms, including severability clauses, and setting mechanisms to resolve ambiguity such as price formulas or arbitration.

If you need help with certainty in law of contract, you can post your job on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.