{"id":13408,"date":"2025-12-24T10:56:55","date_gmt":"2025-12-24T10:56:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=13408"},"modified":"2025-12-24T11:02:53","modified_gmt":"2025-12-24T11:02:53","slug":"contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/","title":{"rendered":"Contra Proferentem: A Shield Against Deliberate Vague Arbitration Agreements"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Contracts form the backbone of every economy by facilitating commerce, investment and governance. When drafted ambiguously, they can disrupt economic transactions and pose a burden on the legal system. Such ambiguity often gives rise to multiple interpretations which in turn leads to prolonged dispute resolution process. About 60% of businesses[i] face legal issues due to poorly drafted contracts, further emphasizing on the magnitude of the problem. In pursuance to the same, the application of the doctrine of contra proferentem to settle the issue of ambiguity might serve as an effective solution.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Understanding_the_Doctrine_of_Contra_Proferentem\" >Understanding the Doctrine of Contra Proferentem<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Importance_of_the_Doctrine_in_Arbitration\" >Importance of the Doctrine in Arbitration<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Supreme_Courts_Recent_Ruling_Stern_Warning_Against_Ambiguity\" >Supreme Court\u2019s Recent Ruling: Stern Warning Against Ambiguity<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Absence_of_Clear_Intent_and_Neutrality\" >Absence of Clear Intent and Neutrality<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Judicial_Time_and_Consequences_of_Poor_Drafting\" >Judicial Time and Consequences of Poor Drafting<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Indian_Judicial_Application\" >Indian Judicial Application<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Application_by_Indian_Courts\" >Application by Indian Courts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Supreme_Court_Observations_on_Drafting\" >Supreme Court Observations on Drafting<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#International_Application_of_Contra_Proferentem_in_Arbitration\" >International Application of Contra Proferentem in Arbitration<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Application_Under_ICC_Arbitration\" >Application Under ICC Arbitration<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/contra-proferentem-a-shield-against-deliberate-vague-arbitration-agreements\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"understanding-the-doctrine-of-contra-proferentem\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Understanding_the_Doctrine_of_Contra_Proferentem\"><\/span>Understanding the Doctrine of Contra Proferentem<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The doctrine of Verba Chartarum Fortius Accipiuntur Contra Proferentem popularly known as Contra Proferentem, is a well-established rule of interpretation. The literal meaning of the term is \u201cagainst the offeror\u201d[ii] and is used when interpreting an ambiguous clause within a contract. The principle directs that such an ambiguous clause must be construed against the interest of the party who insisted on the inclusion of the same. The rationale is that the party in control of the drafting process bears the responsibility to ensure clarity.[iii]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"importance-of-the-doctrine-in-arbitration\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Importance_of_the_Doctrine_in_Arbitration\"><\/span>Importance of the Doctrine in Arbitration<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The significance of this doctrine becomes particularly evident in the field of arbitration. Arbitration Agreement comprises of various clauses that govern the arbitration proceedings. A single ambiguity can defy the very objective of arbitration i.e., a speedy resolution mechanism.[iv] Under arbitration, the enforceability of dispute resolution clause is the very foundation of arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Arbitration agreements are more than just procedural tools. They represent core principles of arbitration such as, party autonomy, neutrality and finality. However, the very purpose of arbitration is undermined when clauses are framed in vague or one-sided terms. This ambiguity leads to disputes about the interpretation and thus, causes delay in the resolution of substantive issues. The Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision with respect to the enforceability of Article 20 of the Concession Agreements, serves as a striking example of this challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-courts-recent-ruling-stern-warning-against-ambiguity\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Courts_Recent_Ruling_Stern_Warning_Against_Ambiguity\"><\/span>Supreme Court\u2019s Recent Ruling: Stern Warning Against Ambiguity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The dispute came before the Supreme Court (SC) through three linked cases[v] involving the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and private contractors. These cases were based on concession agreements executed between the parties for construction purposes. Disputes arose due to the alleged non-fulfilment of contractual obligations by the MCD.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Following this, the private contractors had invoked the dispute resolution mechanism under Article 20 of the Concession Agreements. They contended that the Article 20 encapsulated an arbitration clause alongside mediation, arguing that the essential attributes[vi] of an arbitration agreement were fully satisfied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On the contrary, MCD asserted Article 20 contained no reference to arbitration. Additionally, far-fetched elements could not be relied upon to construe it as an arbitration clause. The SC postulated that three core ingredients must be present to establish an arbitration agreement, namely \u2018clear intent arbitrate\u2019, \u2018binding adjudicatory process\u2019 and \u2018compliance with arbitration norms.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"absence-of-clear-intent-and-neutrality\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Absence_of_Clear_Intent_and_Neutrality\"><\/span>Absence of Clear Intent and Neutrality<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In the present case, express intent to arbitrate was absent, as the clause was titled \u2018Mediation by Commissioner\u2019 and made no explicit mention of words like \u2018arbitration\u2019 or \u2018arbitrator\u2019. This upheld the absence of conscious and unambiguous agreement between the parties. Moreover, the terms of the agreement undermined the fundamental principle of neutrality under arbitration by vesting unilateral control in MCD over the appointment process. The Court further observed that the finality of a decision alone cannot be used to classify the Article 20 as an arbitration clause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-time-and-consequences-of-poor-drafting\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Time_and_Consequences_of_Poor_Drafting\"><\/span>Judicial Time and Consequences of Poor Drafting<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The SC lamented that the parties had spent a decade litigating about the mode of dispute resolution while the merits remained untouched.[vii] It noted that this has caused a \u2018wanton wastage of judicial time\u2019 due to the poorly drafted clauses, creating ambiguity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"indian-judicial-application\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Indian_Judicial_Application\"><\/span>Indian Judicial Application<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In this context, the doctrine of contra proferentem acquires particular significance. The maxim requiring that ambiguity be construed against the drafter serves not only as a safeguard for the parties, but also as a disciplining tool in contract law. By placing the burden of clarity on the drafter, it prevents powerful entities from weaponizing vague clauses. This protects party autonomy. It ensures that one party cannot use unclear language to escape its commitments. This also ensures that judicial time is not consumed by interpretative complexities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"application-by-indian-courts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_by_Indian_Courts\"><\/span>Application by Indian Courts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Indian courts have consistently applied this doctrine in arbitration disputes. In Flowmore Ltd. v. Skipper Ltd.,[viii] the Delhi High Court relied on the doctrine to uphold an arbitral award. The award was based on the principle that when a contract itself becomes the basis for a dispute then the ambiguous terms must be read against the drafter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The SC in Bank of India v. K. Mohan Das reinforced this principle. It directed the bank to bore the consequences of any ambiguity in the contract as the agreement was drafted by them. However, the SC carved out an exception that the maxim cannot be applied[ix] in commercial contracts. The rationale is that parties to such contract are assumed to have reasonable knowledge and therefore, they have equal bargaining power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-observations-on-drafting\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Observations_on_Drafting\"><\/span>Supreme Court Observations on Drafting<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In the present situation, the SC ultimately ruled that Article 20 of Concession Agreements was not an arbitration clause. However, its reasoning underscored the very spirit of contra proferentem by noting that \u201carbitration clauses are worded with piercing precision and clarity\u201d. It directed courts to reject shoddily drafted clauses and even advised invoking suo motu power to hold counsel and law firms personally accountable for inserting ambiguous clauses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This warning reflects the broader concept behind the maxim that the deliberate or negligent act leading to ambiguity, distorts justice. Thus, reinforcing the spirit of contra proferentem by placing responsibility squarely on the drafter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"international-application-of-contra-proferentem-in-arbitration\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"International_Application_of_Contra_Proferentem_in_Arbitration\"><\/span>International Application of Contra Proferentem in Arbitration<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In the international parlance, the rationale for applying contra proferentem with respect to arbitration is not always uniform. Some view it as a rule that protects the weaker party, while others see it as a tool to deter mala fide intention of drafting a clause with ambiguity to escape from it when dispute arises.[x]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"application-under-icc-arbitration\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_Under_ICC_Arbitration\"><\/span>Application Under ICC Arbitration<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Arbitral tribunals have applied it in practice under the ICC Rules in various instances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>Issue<\/th><th>Tribunal\u2019s Approach<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>ICC Case No. 9772 (SA Alfac v. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Imac)<\/td><td>Clause referred to \u201carbitration in Paris in accordance with the rules of the International Arbitration Association\u201d, but no such Association existed.<\/td><td>The arbitrator and the Paris Court of Appeal held that any ambiguity must be construed against the party who drafted the clause.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>ICC Case No. 17768<\/td><td>Respondent initially agreed to ICC arbitration but later claimed the ICC clause violated local law.<\/td><td>The sole arbitrator dismissed the argument, stating that the party cannot contradict itself by trying to retract its commitment that was freely entered into.[xii]<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>ICC Case No. 11869<\/td><td>Poorly drafted clause providing only for \u201carbitration in Vienna, Austria in accordance to the rules of arbitration\u201d, with no institution named and vague reference to ICC.<\/td><td>The sole arbitrator applied contra proferentem and in favorem validitatis, ruling in favour of the Claimant and upholding the ICC arbitration agreement as valid.[xiii]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The International cases show a clear pattern of the usage of doctrine by the tribunals. This approach maintains the integrity of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, the doctrine of contra proferentem plays a significant role in arbitration. This helps in keeping the process fair and transparent. But the rule has certain limitations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Firstly, as per the view established, the doctrine is applied as a last resort which was further affirmed by the arbitral tribunal established in UK v. Germany.[xiv]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Secondly, it can only be applied in cases involving unequal bargaining power or unilaterally imposed clauses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The doctrine must be applied carefully. It should not override the fundamentals favouring the validity of arbitration agreements such as, party autonomy. By ensuring clarity in contract drafting, parties can avoid the very disputes that consume judicial resources. <strong>References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol style=\"list-style-type:lower-roman\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>https:\/\/blog.ioux.in\/did-you-know-60-of-businesses-face-legal-issues-due-to-poor-contracts-heres-how-digital-solutions-can-help\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/contra_proferentem<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Michelle E. Boardman, <em>Contra Proferentem: The Allure of Ambiguous Boilerplate<\/em>, 104 MICH. L. REV. 1105 (March 2006)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GmbH (2014)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/s3.courtbook.in\/2025\/05\/supreme-court-condemns-ambiguously-drafted-arbitration-clauses-urges-suo-motu-action-in-malafide-cases.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>http:\/\/certification.manupatra.in\/assets\/pdf\/subjectwise-case-guide\/MANU-SC-0092-1998.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/16\/supreme-court-suo-motu-powers-misleading-arbitration-clauses\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/www.livelaw.in\/pdf_upload\/flowmore-ltd-versus-skipper-ltd-457186.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/163386936\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Margaret N. Kniffin, <em>Corbin on Contracts<\/em>, 1998, Vol. 5, p. 306<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>SA Alfac v. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Imac importac\u00e3o, (2002) 2 Revue de l\u2019Arbitrage 413, 414<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>ICC Award No. 17768, (2017) XLII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 102, 130<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>ICC Award No. 11869, (2011) XXXVI Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 47, 59, para. 38<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Agreement on German External Debts case, Award of 16 May 1980, Report of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XIX, p. 110, para. 40<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction Contracts form the backbone of every economy by facilitating commerce, investment and governance. When drafted ambiguously, they can disrupt economic transactions and pose a burden on the legal system. Such ambiguity often gives rise to multiple interpretations which in turn leads to prolonged dispute resolution process. About 60% of businesses[i] face legal issues due<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":908,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[330,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-13408","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-arbitration-law","7":"tag-arbitration","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13408","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/908"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13408"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13408\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}