Huh?

Ok, it's official (or reemphasized; I may have already proven the point). Law school is pointless. The passage below sums up my first year (plus) in law school. It comes from a judge's opinion I'm supposed to be "learning" from.

"Ordinarily, the parties' intent must be ascertained from the deed or other instrument creating the restriction. However, when the language used in the instrument is ambiguous, the court must look to the language of the instrument..."

Read that second sentence again and tell me what the hell it is supposed to mean. Seriously, I'd like your thoughts because I have none. My real question is this: just what the hell was the judge looking at in the first place? I mean, if the judge was actually looking at the language of the instrument, they wouldn't be inclined to look at it again. Honestly, pointless.

I can't wait to ask this question tomorrow in class and hear the prof say "I don't know what that means" or "don't worry about that". That will make me feel that I am using my time very well. I'd prefer to watch the Cowboys and their messed up $1B stadium. And you know how much I like watching the Cowboys.