body: This question is a follow up to [If a party says something about interpretation of contract, is it binding?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/38269/if-a-party-says-something-about-interpretation-of-contract-is-it-binding) Since courts usually interpret an ambiguous term [in the favor of the party that did not draft it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem), why would the non-drafting party want clarification? If the party that didn't draft the term gets the benefit of the doubt, wouldn't it make more sense for him not to point out any ambiguities and to not ask clarifying questions before agreeing? 
  
  
  Am I looking at this right? 
  
  
  
title: Given the doctrine of Contra proferentem wouldn't it be better for the non-drafting party to not point out ambiguity?