Oh, have you never dealt with lawyers? There are usually multiple valid interpretations of a contract, depending on what side you are on. I didn't claim to be an oracle of truth, I'm not even tangentially related to this case (as I suspect 99% of the commenter here are).

This is a legal matter, and often it comes down to which side argues their case better. It isn't code where there is only the factual interpretation as seen by the compiler; law takes into account the fuzzy human interpretations that often frustrate programmers. Ultimately, this contract will be enforced by the courts in whichever side makes a better case.

Note that this may mean that even if Elon is in the wrong by canceling, the court may find in his favor simply due to the potential economic fallout. Sucks, but if law was a cut and dried thing we would have eliminated lawyers long ago.

Well-written contracts don't really have multiple valid interpretations. I don't know why we should assume the contract wasn't well-written.

Well if that's your definition, I'd go so far as to say 'well-written' contracts don't exist.

> Well if that's your definition, I'd go so far as to say 'well-written' contracts don't exist.

Do you believe it's not possible to draw up clear contracts with clear meanings? Do you believe that if you just take any contract and pay a lawyer some money, they can argue whatever? In that case, what's the purpose of drawing up a contract at all?

Language is imprecise so I'd argue it is basically impossible to create a contract with zero ambiguity.

Resolving that ambiguity is an important function of law and I'd go so far as to say the primary function of the court system. I do believe that if you pay a lawyer enough money you can probably find one willing to argue what you want although you may not win.