The Sorites paradox dates from the fourth century BC and is attributed to Eubulides by Melitus. It has received a resurgence of attention since 1975, when three articles published in synthesis effectively designed the contemporary study of vagitude. An insured may choose to file a claim against the claim with a court in order to continue to ask an insurance company to pay their claim. This filing would require mediation by the court and could lead to payment by the insurance company if the court finds that an insurance clause was deliberately vague or ambiguously written by the insurer in order to avoid payment of damages. The contracting parties always want to organize a treaty in such a way as to avoid future differences of opinion. Here are some ways to avoid ambiguity in a treatise: the philosophical question of what is the best theoretical treatment of vagence – which is closely related to the problem of the stack paradox, aka Sorite`s paradox – has been the subject of much philosophical debate. Sorite`s paradoxes use the intuition that some vague predicates are tolerant with respect to small differences in a dimension that is essential to their application. This principle seems to apply on the basis that (for example) no particular height is more justified than others in the vicinity of it than the cut-off for courtesy. The problem with indeterminacy is to explain their particular nature of indeterminacy. Does vagence make much of the ordinary language meaningless? Probably not, because in ordinary speech we often use vague language with great impact.
If not, what is varegerity at the level of predicatic logic? How to model it smoothly without sacrificing too much classical logic? Is vagence semantic, metaphysical or episoic? Indeterminacy is also a problem in law and, in some cases, judges must decide whether or not a borderline case corresponds to a particular vague concept. Examples are disability (how much vision loss is required before being legally blind?), human life (at what point from conception to birth is one a legal human being protected by laws against murder for example?), adulthood (best known at the legal age to drive, drink, choose, consensual sex, etc.), race (how to classify someone with a Metrasian heritage), etc. Even seemingly clear terms, such as sex, can be subject to problems of indeterminacy, not only because of transsexuals, but also because of certain genetic conditions that can give an individual mixed male and female biological characteristics (see Intersex). A contract is considered ambiguous if the treaty is reasonably subject to more than one interpretation. This can sometimes mean that it is not clear what the parties intend to do as a whole. But normally, an ambiguous treaty means that a certain term, word, phrase, or definition is vague or ambiguous. Indeterminacy in itself has attracted the attention of a vast literature. In addition, vagheit is a subject that touches many other issues in philosophy, linguistics and cognitive science, not to mention ordinary conversations. This intuition has been called the No Sharp Boundaries thesis on vague predicates and plays a prominent role in theories of indeterminacy.  The expression contre proferentem in Latin means against the supplier what can continue to be interpreted as the “fault of the author”. On the whole, the counter-profertem rule is known to accuse the party who established or requested an ambiguous clause. It is conceived both as a reservation, a penalty or a legal sanction for the introduction and inclusion of a deliberately vague contractual clause in a contract.
. . .