AMBIGUITY, in law, is of two kinds, patent and latent. (I) Patent ambiguity is that which is apparent on the face of an instrument to anyone perusing it. In the case of a patent ambigu ity parol evidence is admissible to explain only what has been written, not what it was intended to write (Garrard v. Lewis [ 1882] 10 Q.B.D. 3o). Where it appears from the general context what the parties really meant, the instrument will be construed as if there were no ambiguity (Saye and Sele's case io Mod. 46; De Rosaz, in the Goods of [ 1877] 2 P.D. 66). (2) Latent am biguity is where the wording of an instrument (on the face of it clear and intelligible) may at the same time apply equally to two different things or subject matters. Latent ambiguity may be explained by parol evidence, as the ambiguity has been brought about by circumstances extraneous to the instrument (Doe D. Thomas v. Beynon [ 184o] 12 Ad. and E. 435). But a contract that is void for uncertainty will not be rendered certain by part performance (Waring and Gillow v. Thompson [1g13] 29 T.L.R. 1S4 C.A.). (See also CONTRACT; EVIDENCE; PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.)