The Court is hesitant to allow a party at full capacity who has signed a document with the possibility of discernment to say that this is not what it meant. Otherwise, security and enforceable applicability would be hampered by unrelenting attempts to tarnish the subject through pre-contract negotiations. These considerations apply with particular force in the field of trade, where security is so important. In the reported cases, different expressions were used to describe the standard of proof required by the person seeking correction. In this case, counsel agreed that the standard could be properly indicated by stating that the Court of Justice must be „sure“ of the error and the existence of a prior agreement or common intent before granting the remedy. A judge created in a dispute over its legal meaning usually an ambiguous term in a dispute. The judge examines the circumstances of the provision, the statutes, other writings, oral agreements dealing with the same purpose and the likely purpose of the ambiguous sentence to conclude the correct meaning of those words. Once the judge has done so, the court will impose the words interpreted. But there can be no construction for clear language. The procedure that determines the importance of an ambiguous provision of a statute, a written document or an oral agreement.
However, a contractual document may not have sufficiently reflected the intentions of the parties, in which case they may ask the Tribunal to „correct“ the agreement (i.e., pretend that the written terms are different and give an order accordingly). Asking a court to correct a document does not mean requiring a change in the contract. It is simply requested to change the record of the document. Correction is a fair protection of discretion and is therefore not available to applicants who delay excessively, and it has no effect on a good faith buyer without notice. There is a narrow line between interpretation and rectification, as evidence that contributes to interpretation can also lead to a correction.  Applicants may require both.  For a time it was orthodox to defend an objective interpretation that Smith best displayed against Hughes.  While Mr.
Smith was thinking of buying old oats after testing a sample, but was actually buying green oats, he could not say that he was not bound by his consent.