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, the focus is on giving effect to what the parties actually intended. If a term is ambiguous but the surrounding evidence shows a clear intent to include it, the rule that applies reads the term as included. This supports the parties’ evident purpose rather than letting a vague phrase drop out of the contract simply because the language isn’t perfectly precise. In other words, if inclusion is certain from the context and intent, the term is treated as part of the agreement.

The parol evidence rule is about whether extrinsic evidence can contradict or modify a written contract, which is different from resolving ambiguity based on clear intent. The last-shot rule deals with which party’s terms govern in contract formation when forms are exchanged, not how ambiguous terms are interpreted in light of intent. The doctrine of consideration concerns what is required for a bargain to be legally enforceable, not the interpretation of ambiguous terms.