In which type of legal instrument is parol evidence admissible to explain an obvious ambiguity?

Parol evidence is admissible in the context of patent ambiguity to help clarify the meaning of a written agreement. Patent ambiguity exists when a contract or legal instrument contains language that is unclear or open to multiple interpretations based solely on the document's wording. When such ambiguities arise, courts allow the introduction of extrinsic evidence—such as verbal agreements or surrounding circumstances—to interpret or explain the apparent conflicts in the document.

In this case, the choice regarding patent ambiguity is particularly relevant because it specifically refers to situations where the ambiguity is apparent on the face of the document. The use of parol evidence is aimed at shedding light on the intent of the parties involved, which is crucial in resolving disputes that stem from unclear terms in legal instruments.

Other types of legal instruments, such as a quitclaim deed, life estate, or defeasible fee simple, do not inherently provide the same basis for introducing external evidence to clarify an existing ambiguity. Patent ambiguity uniquely allows for this approach, making it the most appropriate choice in this scenario.