Originally Posted by tomgoodman

Arguing over what someone "intended" may be pointless. Here is a well-known statement on that subject:

"A contract has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the personal, or individual, intent of the parties. A contract is an obligation attached by the mere force of law to certain acts of the parties, usually words, which ordinarily accompany and represent a known intent. If, however, it were proved by twenty bishops that either party when he used the words intended something else than the usual meaning which the law imposes on them, he would still be held, unless there were mutual mistake or something else of the sort."

--Judge Learned Hand
(Hotchkiss v. National City Bank, 200 F. 287 [S.D.N.Y. 1911])