The title sort of says it all, I'm wondering if a contract would be read differently or more literally if written, or signed, by a trained lawyer then if it was done by layman.
So let's say that I sign a contract with someone that has an ambiguous statement in it, one where strict reading of the words as written would imply X, but from context, it seems likely that the statement was actually meant to imply Y instead. For now, let's say I am arguing I read the contract as meaning X when I signed it, and the writer of the contract is trying to argue they meant Y.
As I understand it whether the contract is read as meaning X or Y is enforceable is dependent on what is the most reasonable reading. If it takes an excessively literal reading to get X, and any sane person would infer Y then Y is what is enforceable. If a sane person would instead likely view X as being the intent, then X is what is enforceable even if Y was what the writer had intended.
But what if it's ambiguous which reading is most reasonable, would it matter rather the writer of the contract was a trained lawyer, or a layman like me? Could I argue that a the writer was a lawyer and should know how to write a contract and so they should have understood the literal interpretation of the clause was X and thus has no legal grounds for claiming they meant Y? If instead the writer was another layman, would they be more likely to be able to argue they meant the obvious interpretation Y and that literal reading X was just bad writing of someone who didn't know what they were doing?
The same argument could be made in reverse as well, if instead I wrote the contract and had meant literal interpretation X and the signer claims they thought the contract meant 'reasonable' interpretation Y, would the signer being or not being a lawyer affect rather I can claim they should reasonable have believed X was intended?