In interpreting a contract, the certainly included rule is used when a term is ambiguous but the parties clearly intended to include it. Which option correctly identifies this rule?

• A. The parol evidence rule
• B. The last-shot rule
• C. The certainly included rule
• D. The doctrine of consideration

Answer: (C)

When interpreting a contract, courts aim to give effect to the terms the parties clearly intended to include, even if a term is ambiguous. If the term is ambiguous but there is a clear intent to include it, the interpretation should reflect that inclusion, and extrinsic evidence about the parties’ intent can be used to resolve the ambiguity. This approach matches the described rule, which is why it’s the best answer.

The parol evidence rule governs whether extrinsic evidence can be used to alter or add to a written contract in the first place; it’s about admissibility rather than the specific situation of interpreting an ambiguous term with clear intent to include it. The last-shot rule deals with which party’s form governs in a negotiation sequence (often in battles of forms), not with interpretation of ambiguous terms. The doctrine of consideration concerns whether a promise is supported by consideration, not how ambiguities are interpreted.