civil procedure. even the name sounds boring
I would agree with the good doctor; maybe a court could go the other way, but I think they'd really have to strain to do so. The argument is at least colorable, but it looks like a stretch. Isn't there some sort of old maxim which says something like the contract (or offer) is normally to be construed against the party who made it (the idea being that if they really meant for it to say something, they could and should have been more clear in communicating that)?