> 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.