body: Can the writer of a contract attempt to trick the signer using defined terms? Is such a contract binding or void, and can the writer get into trouble for doing so (eg. for misrepresentation)? Two types of scenarios that I want to ask about:
  
  
  1. When a defined term in the contract carry a much narrower, or much broader meaning than the common meaning. For example, can a contract define a term "Image" (as in a picture) to mean any computer file, or to mean any image showing a red flower?
  2. When the defined meaning is completely incompatible with the common sense meaning. For example, can a contract define an "Text file" as a file with the `.png` extension?
  
  
  Does the answer change if the defined term, when used normally, starts with a capital letter (eg. if "SVG file" is defined as a `.png` file), so the reader is less likely to suspect the term has been defined in the contract itself?
  
  
  Does the answer change if this happened in another legal document, such as a EULA, where the person agreeing does not have a chance to call the writer of the document out?
  
  
  
title: Is it legal to redefine a term against common sense in a contract