Thomas Shey
Legend
What I'm saying is that establishing legal rights, based on the interpretation of a contract, is not always straightforward.
Some litigation involves arguing over facts. But a lot of it involves arguing over who has what rights, given the undisputed terms of an instrument. It's not always the case that one of the parties to the litigation must be lying or self-deluded.
Perhaps its a semantic argument, but I'd say if you're arguing for an interpretation of a contract that supports your interests that is not supported by the law that's virtually the definition of self-deluded. You may not be clear on that fact, but that's part of what makes it deluded.
(Now if you just go into it hoping that's how it'll work out, that may be an overly strong term; then, if the case shaking out seems pretty clear, you may simply be ignorant. Of course this skips the cases where the contract and law there in is muddy as all hell, in which case you may be over-optimistic. In one fashion or another, however you seem divorced from reality; the only question is whether you're deliberately keeping yourself there or simply in the process of discovering it).