Exactly, I got into quite a heated discussion with a company that offered me a job with "unlimited PTO". They wanted me to sign in the contract with a clause along the lines of "you have unlimited PTO within reason". The whole point of contracts is that you have to explicitly define what is deemed "reasonable". I insisted they put a number to it and they refused.

Needless to say, I didn't accept the job in the end.

Eh I also wouldn't take that job. But why, really? If you're used to 35 days of PTO, and you take the same 35 days off at your new job, who are they to claim that whatever you're used to is unreasonable?

Also you do not get paid for leave you have accrued when you are terminated or quit.

That’s the entire reason for such policies. If it was coupled with coupled with truly top of market expectations (ie six weeks, including an annual 3 week vacation) I think it would be a fair trade off. But it often is not.

Exactly, ambiguous contractual agreements are always in favor of those with more power.