Again, I've dealt with enough liars in finance that this just doesn't hold water. This is liar trick #344. You have a written contract that explicit states X but implies Y, and then you have a nice person that reassures you that Y is true. Then when things blow up, the liar collects the money, and then says you have no proof that anyone ever offered Y.
It's a cool trick. It's cool enough so that people have spent decades figuring laws around this, and they still don't completely work.
Look, if you ask people when they first get interested in science, it's usually around age eight or nine, and at that age, kids really can't make these sorts of fine distinctions.
The thing that I can't figure out is why people keep defending things. You can argue that this is the best people could think of, and that's fine, but sometimes people can think of better things.
One thing that helped me a lot was when I gave myself "permission to be angry and bitter."