Top Law Schools

I think it's because i've been studying for 12 hours today, but I keep confusing myself as to what exactly the rules of interpretation are trying to do. Are Williston's and Corbin's views on interpretation supposed to be used to decide whether a term is ambiguous? Or are they used to determine the actual term of the K once the provision in question had been declared ambiguous by a judge? Or both? Furthermore, are "aids to interpretation" and "rules of preference" just additional views on interpretation? Or are there a time and place to use those rules?

you use the tests to determine whether the term is ambiguous, then if it is, you can introduce extrinsic evidence to the jury for them to decide which side to believe


at least that's the way we learned it. We only learned the Plain Meaning and Traynor's Test though.

i am slightly confused as well. so please correct me if i'm wrong.

there are three approaches to determine the existence of latent ambiguity in the written contract after the judge decides integration
right?

four corners/plain meaning: judge does not consider any parol evidence (+ the trade etc)

objective only: judge looks at objective extrinsic evidence only in making his determination. at this preliminary stage the judge looks at the evidence

traynor: judge looks at all things including testimony from the parties about their subjective understanding about a contested term. he is also at a preliminary stage

and then i am unsure what happens here.

if judge says ambiguous, then i think it goes to jury and all the extrinsic/parol evidence
if judge says unambiguous, then he just can give it a meaning

so when is interpretation used? is the judge using it when he's reviewing the evidence at the preliminary stage or is the term interpreted after the judge says ambiguous and the jury does it?