§ SECTION 100 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER VI — EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies

Part of the words fits one set of facts, part fits another — but the whole fits neither correctly. Evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.

How to read Section 100

Part fits here, part fits there — the whole fits neither → evidence chooses which set.

The trigger

The words apply partly to one set of facts and partly to another — the whole fits neither correctly.

The opening

Evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.

The limit

Only to choose between the two sets — not to redraw the description.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — the rule and its illustration.

Section 100 · verbatim

When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.

Illustration

A agrees to sell to B “my land at X in the occupation of Y”. A has land at X, but not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the occupation of Y but it is not at X. Evidence may be given of facts showing which he meant to sell.

In short: a composite description — one part points to one thing, another part to a different thing, and no single thing answers to all the words. ‘My land at X, in the occupation of Y’ when one plot is at X (but not held by Y) and another is held by Y (but not at X). Because the writing describes a thing that does not fully exist, the law lets evidence in to show which of the two the parties meant. The power is limited to choosing between the two competing sets of facts — not a route to a third thing, nor to alter the bargain’s terms.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 97 — the latent ambiguity of a partly-fitting description.

Glossary

applies partly…and partly

Each fragment of the description fits a different thing.

two sets of existing facts

Two real, competing states of affairs.

the whole…does not apply correctly to either

No single candidate satisfies every word.

to which of the two it was meant to apply

The single question the evidence answers.

latent ambiguity

Uncertainty that surfaces only when words meet the facts.

§ 99 vs § 100

Fits several wholly (99) versus fits two partly (100).

The picture

Two partial fits, one intended — evidence decides which.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleThe latent family

the rulePartly one, partly the other — the whole fits neither, so evidence picks which

In one lineWhere the words apply partly to one set of facts and partly to another, but the whole fits neither, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.

When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either,the words fit two sets PARTLY — the whole fits neitherthe phrase applies partly to one set of facts and partly to another, but as a whole to neither correctly…

evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply.→ evidence IS allowed: WHICH of the two was meant…evidence may be given to show to which of the two sets it was meant to apply.

ExampleA sells “my land at X in the occupation of Y”. One plot is at X (but not held by Y); another is held by Y (but not at X). Neither answers to the whole phrase — so evidence may show which plot was meant.

✗ Not thisThis is latent ambiguity of a composite description — part fits one set, part another. Evidence chooses between the two; it cannot bring in a third thing, nor operate where the words fit one thing correctly (§ 97).

the latent familyFits nothing (§ 98) · fits several (§ 99) · fits two partly (§ 100)

In one lineThe latent ambiguities all admit evidence: plain words that fit nothing (§ 98 → peculiar sense), that fit several wholly (§ 99 → which one), and that fit two sets partly (§ 100 → which set). Here, evidence shows which of the two was intended.

A agrees to sell to B “my land at X in the occupation of Y”. A has land at X, but not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the occupation of Y but it is not at X.the phrase splits — one plot at X, another held by Y‘land at X’ fits one plot; ‘in the occupation of Y’ fits another — neither fits the whole.

Evidence may be given of facts showing which he meant to sell.→ evidence shows which plot was meantevidence may be given of facts showing which of the two plots A meant to sell.

ExampleThe phrase ‘my land at X in the occupation of Y’ describes one plot — but A owns two, each matching only half. Evidence may show which he meant to sell.

✗ Not thisEvidence here chooses between the two competing plots — it does not let you pick a plot that matches neither description, nor vary the price or other terms.

Connected provisions

§ 99

IEA 1872, § 97

Carried forward — language applying to one of two sets of facts.

BSA 2023 § 100 — Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts