This contract wording has me wondering a few things...

Why would Sidley waste their time laying out claims that completely defy the wording in this clause?

Wouldn't they know better if this was ironclad, or even very difficult to defeat?

I get that sometimes you have to throw a lot at a wall in hopes that at least one things sticks, but Sidley isn't Craig. They're legal assassins. I have to believe that they believe their claims are not just valid, but enforceable.

Thoughts?