What is true regarding the interpretation of contracts when faced with ambiguous terms?

When encountering ambiguous terms in a contract, the primary principle guiding courts is to interpret the contract in a manner that aligns with the intent of the parties involved as expressed within the document. This means that if the language of the contract is unclear or vague, the court will look for indications of what the parties likely intended when they formulated the agreement. This approach aims to honor the original purpose of the contract and ensure that the parties' mutual understandings are upheld.

Courts may consider various factors, such as the context of the agreement, the relationship between the parties, and any relevant negotiations that took place prior to signing. By focusing on the intent of the parties rather than rigid interpretations of language, the court seeks to support fairness and prevent unjust outcomes.

While the other options present different principles around contract interpretation, they do not align with the foundational rule of ascertaining party intent. For instance, the notion that the drafting party's interpretation prevails ignores the collaborative nature of contracts. Similarly, the assertion that technical words are always granted their ordinary meaning overlooks the possibility that in specific contexts, the parties might have assigned different meanings to those terms. Finally, the idea that pre-printed terms override handwritten ones typically applies unless clear indications show that the parties intended to