(b) That's wrong. If, after giving the words in a commercial contract their ordinary meaning, the terms can be interpreted in more than one way, the courts will avoid an interpretation that would be commercially inconvenient, unrealistic or nonsensical. Why? Because the courts infer that the parties to a commercial agreement would obviously intend to agree to convenient, realistic or sensible terms.
However, this principle is only used when the terms in question genuinely give rise to an ambiguity of meaning. It is not used to avoid giving effect to clearly expressed and unambiguous terms, even if those terms prove inconvenient or disadvantageous.