It's always best to say what you mean as clearly and as simply as you can, right?

Maybe.

If you’re writing the "risk factors" for an offering document, yes, you should seek to be clear. (This statement is aspirational. Most securities lawyers do strive to flag pertinent risks, but actual practice finds them burying meaningful disclosure within HYSTERICAL ALL CAPS BOILERPLATE DESIGNED TO EXHAUST YOU AND GET YOU TO SKIP RIGHT OVER IT.)

Ambiguity, however, is indispensable to the drafter of commercial contracts.

The case for precision and clarity is always forceful: avoid disputes later by spelling things out today; write as if the parties doing the deal won't later be around, or will have forgotten themselves, or will have joined the dark side. Trust is fostered, commerce enhanced, by plain dealing. Everyone loves a shrewd negotiator, but he who speaks un-plainly gets the reputation of a sharp dealer.

What about, however, material points on which the parties will not agree? Either because they do not have the time, or do not wish to risk what they regard as the more essential deal?

Here are opportunities for skilled draftspersons to practice at being elusive. Words are chosen -- sometimes artfully chosen -- to preserve for each party a different argument on the same point. An issue may be flagged expressly for the sake of not resolving it.

If I'm making it sound like there is a secret, select cadre of lawyers who participate in such willful obfuscation, I shouldn't. All good business lawyers participate. The more adept a lawyer is at employing such techniques, and judging when they are needed, the more effective that lawyer is as a deal maker.