When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the parties to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in which he had reason to suppose the other understood it.
§ 25-1217.Agreements; construction of terms.
Article 12: Evidence and Witnesses · Not amended since original codification · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceThis section resolves a dispute over what an ambiguous agreement means by favoring the interpretation that one party reasonably believed the other party understood, when the two sides attached different meanings to the same term.
Full Text of § 25-1217
Source
R.S.1867, Code § 341, p. 451; R.S.1913, § 7909; C.S.1922, § 8851; C.S.1929, § 20-1217; R.S.1943, § 25-1217.
Plain-English Summary
Contracting parties do not always mean the same thing by the same words. Section 25-1217 supplies a tiebreaker for that situation: when the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the parties, the sense that prevails is whichever one a party had reason to believe the other side understood.
The rule turns on reasonable expectation rather than on either party’s private, undisclosed intent. If one party had reason to suppose the other party understood a term a certain way, that understanding controls against the party who held the different, undisclosed meaning. A party cannot attach a private meaning to contract language and later insist on that meaning if the party had reason to know the other side understood something else.
This section pairs naturally with section 25-1216’s rule about written terms controlling over printed boilerplate. Both sections address how a court reads an ambiguous or conflicting document, one by ranking the form of the language, the other by ranking the reasonable understanding behind it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if two parties to a contract understood a key term differently?
Section 25-1217 resolves the conflict by favoring the sense that a party had reason to believe the other party understood, rather than either party’s private meaning.
Does this section look at what a party privately meant, or what the party had reason to believe the other side understood?
It looks at reasonable belief about the other party’s understanding, not a party’s private, undisclosed intent.
Can a party avoid a contract term by claiming they privately meant something different?
Not under this section. If the party had reason to suppose the other side understood the term differently, that other understanding prevails against the party holding the private meaning.
Does this section apply only to written contracts?
Its language addresses the terms of an agreement generally, without limiting itself to a particular form, so it applies to disputes over the meaning of agreement terms regardless of format.
How does this section relate to section 25-1216?
Section 25-1216 resolves conflicts between written and printed portions of an instrument. Section 25-1217 resolves conflicts over what a term means when the parties understood it differently. Both address how ambiguity or conflict in an agreement gets read.
Source & verification. Section text and the amendment-history citation are
reproduced verbatim from the Nebraska Legislature, Revisor of Statutes, enacted by the
Nebraska Legislature. Last verified July 22, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: contract interpretation different meanings nebraskaambiguous agreement terms rulereasonable understanding of contract termconstruing conflicting intent agreementwhose understanding of contract term controls