Perhaps, the actual language of the deal is written in legalese and providing a clear interpretation is valuable? I've certainly been in meetings with lawyers that my company specifically engaged for their ability to provide an interpretation of a contract in clear language. Now, nobody paid the GP to provide that interpretation, but it seems silly to pretend that it's invalid to speculate on the interpretation of a contract when there is an entire profession specialized in the minutia of similar activity.
That misses the point. The question was whether the "clear interpretation" was actually accurate. In other words GP's interpretation might simply be wrong.
> invalid to speculate.
Then say that you are speculating instead if claiming it as the truth.
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 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.
