From what I've seen it is extremely arbitrary and is extremely frustrating. I was on a jury once, where one witness was told to tell only what they had heard/seen/etc. They would try to say "I heard so and so say such and such", and the other side would object. The judge would then say to tell only what you saw, heard, etc., not what other people did or said. And I'm sitting there thinking "But what that is exactly what they were trying to do!" (of course I couldn't say a single word for risk to my own safety).

You're talking about a Chinese court, right? The guy you're planning to sue lives in China and is a long-time business "associate" of the judge who will decide your case.

It could also be that such clear terms are useful in other jurisdictions where shenanigans like that wouldn't be smacked down without them.

If you read contracts a lot (and over the years I've probably read a couple of thousand and negotiated maybe 100 or so) you will begin to see clauses that are in the contract which specifically prevent what was clearly a problem before that had not been decided as being in breach, so the added clause insures that in future contracts it would be decided as being in breach.

My lawyer once told me that every contract tells a story if you know how to read it. The more I've read, the more I have come to appreciate that sentiment.

These are the signs that I always have a good chuckle with, thinking, "that sign is there because someone did that."