If a map recorded with the county is damaged, lost, or stolen, someone interested in it can ask the court to approve a true copy of it as the replacement. They must submit a written request explaining the situation, with the copy of the map they have. The court will review evidence, and if convinced, will officially declare the copy as valid and instruct that it be recorded as the new official map. Once recorded, this new map is legally treated the same as the original. Any property transactions relying on the map will be legally valid, just like if the original map was never harmed or lost.

This law states that if you have a written agreement that both parties consider the final version, you can't use evidence from earlier discussions or oral agreements made at the same time to contradict it. However, you can bring in additional consistent terms unless the written contract is meant to be the complete and exclusive deal. The court decides if the written document is the final and complete agreement. If there are mistakes or if the contract's validity is questioned, you can bring in evidence to support these claims. The law also allows for evidence explaining the situation around the agreement or clarifying any unclear points. The term "agreement" covers things like trust documents, deeds, wills, and contracts.

This law says that when interpreting a written agreement, you should generally understand its language based on the local meaning where it was signed, unless the parties involved intended for a different location to apply.

This law says that when judges are interpreting laws or legal documents, their job is to figure out what the text actually says. They shouldn't add anything that isn't there or leave out anything that is written. If there are multiple parts to the law, the interpretation should aim to make all parts effective if possible.

This section of the law says that when interpreting a law or a legal document, we should try to figure out what the lawmakers or the involved parties meant. If there's a conflict between a broad rule and a specific rule, the specific one is more important and takes priority.

This law says that when a judge is trying to understand a legal document, they can consider the circumstances and context in which it was created. This includes understanding the situation of both the subject matter and the people involved, to better interpret what the document's language means.

This law states that when interpreting written agreements, the words used are generally taken to mean what they commonly mean. However, if there's proof that in a specific case, the words had a special or unique meaning, the agreement should be understood that way.

If a document has both handwritten and printed parts that contradict each other, the handwritten part takes priority over the printed one.

This law is about understanding the terms of an agreement when each party interprets them differently. If one party thinks the other party understands the terms in a certain way, that interpretation will be used against them. When there are multiple ways to reasonably interpret a provision, the interpretation that benefits the party the provision was meant to help will be chosen.

This section explains that any written notice or document should be understood by its usual meaning. When it comes to notices about a bill of exchange or promissory note that isn't accepted or paid, it means that the document was properly shown for acceptance or payment, was refused, and the person who sent the notice expects the person receiving it to pay.