A curious and captious interpretation in law is to be reproved.

Explanation

Strained, hair-splitting, or overly clever readings of instruments and statutes are rejected; the law favors the natural, straightforward meaning over ingenious technicality.

Where this applies

• The other side is using a hair-splitting, overly clever reading of the contract.
• A strained and captious interpretation should be rejected in favor of the natural meaning.
• The court should reject tricky readings and use the straightforward one.

See also

• 10.1.17 A curious and captious interpretation in the law is to be reproved.
• 10.3.4 A latent ambiguity may be supplied by proof; for what arises in ambiguity from an extrinsic fact is removed by proof of the fact.