Lisa and Darrell Miller had a son, Landon. When the Millers divorced, they entered into a “Joint Plan” (JP). Under the JP, Darrell agreed to “begin setting funds aside for Landon to attend college.” After Landon’s eighteenth birthday, Lisa asked a court to order Darrell to pay the boy’s college expenses based on the JP. Darrell contended that the JP was not clear on this point. Do the rules of contract interpretation support Lisa’s request or Darrell’s contention? Explain.