> a way that's as fair as possible to everyone involved, rather than going by the strict letter of every contract document. Presumably, this is in place to kee

> a way that's as fair as possible to everyone involved, rather than going by the strict letter of every contract document. Presumably, this is in place to keep colluding with judges who will interpret your claim "fairly", for a fee, to a minimum, as well as mitigate the hedge against those who defend contract discrepancies with "Well, that's what we meant", when in fact, that was neither what was meant or ever said. The Halbig decision bears on this matter. There's a law, which is effectively a contract, and the IRS attempted to interpret it how they needed to to make the ACA work. What this means now is, right or wrong, that we have a group of Senators and Representatives who voted on a law to be enacted as it was written, and when that was no longer viable, they simply 'interpreted' the text of the law to mean something new so that it could work. Ignoring who's right or who is wrong, some additional lawyering up front would have prevented this, but that was not done because it would not have been politically expedient. Contracts are a way of keeping people fair. If the contract is written in a way that isn't fair, then it would be unenforceable regardless of how well it was written, so that 'fairness' is built in to contract law already.