Assignment task: Could you please help to explain details as if you are the judge how would you resolve the below ambiguity and provide the interpretation your believe should be used? I have wrote this but could you please help to explain more details
Ambiguity:
"One would be confused about what this section would really mean as it can be interpreted differently by different individuals. The ambiguity in this statement arises from the two meanings that can be drawn from the statement, based on their interpretation of what "reasonable" means in this case. What would seem reasonable to one person may not seem reasonable to another. The first potential meaning to this section is that reasonable means can be interpreted to mean the use of all low-cost methods of communication, such as email, physical mail or text. A frequent user to whom Spotify service is very important could potentially adopt this interpretation. The second potential meaning to would be that, reasonable means can be through the use of just a pop-up message in the app, by assuming that all users will see it and read it, therefore making it sufficient and reasonable. Since there are two potential meanings that can be drawn from this section of the contract and it is not clear on what exactly the user should expect, it makes this section ambiguous. The ambiguity comes at the point or means in which a user will be notified of the intended changes.
The second ambiguity in the sentence arises in regard to what would constitute "material changes". Something that would be deemed material to an average user may not seem material to Spotify. This is because materiality of any changes in terms is subjective to the user. Different users may use the Spotify service differently and prioritize different features, so some changes to the contract that the company may think are minor, could affect the decision making of some users, making these changes material to them. Since the contract has not specified expressly what constitute material terms and what does not constitute material terms, or what potential changes would be deemed material, this part of the contract is ambiguous. Multiple fair interpretations of this section of the contract make it ambiguous."
Here is what I wrote to resolve this:
To resolve the ambiguity for "reasonable means" in this case, as an average user would think that at least an email-message for Spotify would be reasonable, not just pop-up message. As a judge would side with what the average person would consider reasonable. To resolve "material change" an average person would consider any terms changes regarding availability of content, service interruptions or changes, communications fees, and code of conduct to be material. As a judge in this case would side with whatever would possibly to make an average user change their mind about continuing with Spotify service to be material.
Please help to explain more detail from what i wrote to resolve these 2 ambiguous as a judge.