Any ambiguities in contracts of adhesion are which of the following?

• A. Interpreted in favor of the non-drafting party to the contract.
• B. Best submitted to arbitration for clarification.
• C. Usually inserted intentionally to give the drafting party more flexibility.
• D. Most often resolved by reformation of the contract.

Answer: (A)

Ambiguities in contracts of adhesion are interpreted in favor of the party who did not draft the contract. Since one party prepared the form and the other must accept it as is, courts apply a rule that the meaning most favorable to the non-drafting party will govern. This protects someone with less bargaining power, such as an insured or consumer, from being disadvantaged by vague boilerplate language.

Arbitration for clarification isn’t the standard rule guiding interpretation; it’s a dispute-resolution forum, not the method for resolving ambiguous language. The idea that ambiguities are inserted intentionally to give the drafting party more flexibility isn’t how this principle operates—if anything, the rule curbs the drafter’s advantage. Reformation, while a possible remedy in cases of mutual mistake or fraud, isn’t the default way to handle ordinary ambiguities in adhesion contracts.