Hmm. Since your post was a reply to my node about the difference between something that is illegal and something that violates a contract, I'm left to guess you are reading a little to much in between the lines. :)

Aside from that, I would agree with the idea that people should stick to the spirit of their agreements.

As to the question of whether we can have laws that are totally unambiguous, the answer is a definite maybe. The reason lawyers have to study so long is due in part to the need for them to learn legal English. In legal English, many words have slightly more restricted meanings than the way we use them in a day-to-day basis. And while everyday language is evolving, the legal language is much more static. But even carefully-worded documents like the US constitution are subject to this change because through time, its interpreters become less and less capable of understanding the possible nuances of the original document. Even when time does not confuse the issue, there is a huge difference between how a legal expert might interpret something and the way a layperson like myself would. (Also remember that a lot of politicians have no legal training, either.)

And total unambiguity is a very desireable thing---a utopia, in fact. It's not happening any time soon, but yes, I would gladly live in a world where laws were completely unambiguous. At the very least, it would keep politicians very busy fixing outdated laws and at the very best, it would eliminate injustice, assuming the lawmakers are democratic and believe in minority rights. :)

--
Allolex