>The meaning of words is always open to interpretation. Rarely do boilerplate agreements reflect the true intent of parties. Good lawyers dispense with the legalease and use plain language that everyone can understand. Only then, can documents begin to reflect the intent of the parties.
>
>Still, there are times when misunderstandings occur. What did party x look for? Did party y promise something else in return? Often, parties, by their own accord, will stray beyond the written document. This only becomes a problem when things don't work out right. Then, somebody is going to want to get the agreement enforced. Now, you get into what constitutes the agreement. Is it the written document or something more. Better yet, can it be something more? There is the doctrine known as the statute of frauds that bars anything but the written document from being eligible as evidence. Depending on which side you are on, you will argue why the statute of frauds should/should not apply.
>
>How important is language? In conveyances of property, the presence of a comma can greatly alter one's legal standing with respect to a future interest in property.

And, by your descriptions/discussion, it appears that lawyers who can smother their opponents in a flood of linquistic confusions can create confusion in the minds or jurists an jurors. I.E., Johnny Cochran, for example? Or John Peterson? :)