[loceng]

A promise isn't a contract, so whether it's actually guaranteed in the language in whatever agreements may be signed, will be the determining factor.

And how the automative industry has functioned since its existence is risk-benefit-cost analysis, so if the cost of a future fallout is less than the short-term benefit then they tend to decide for the short-term benefit; most disgustingly in regards to known problems of vehicles, where only recalls happen if the potential harm/death rate and the cost of that is lower than the cost of replacing whatever needs to be replaced; I'd hope that practice has greatly improved, but who knows - most of our government agencies seem captured by industrial complexes.

[bluGill]

No, courts look at the spirit of the language and the letter of the law. The letter takes precedent only when it is clear that the two parties are not intending to defraud each other and there is just a misunderstanding. If the court decides both parties had a different understanding of the contract than the letter, then what they understand is what is used. As a lawyer in court your jobs it to make the court believe what you understood the contract was about is what they use - if the letter supports you then you yell that, and since the letter is a easy to prove while a shared understanding that is different from the letter is impossible the letter normally wins.

Marketing is admissible in court as evidence of intended contract. Since marketing is generally easier to understand the legalese, if the court decides the marketing is misleading they will tend to punish you for that and accept the marketing as the shared understanding over whatever the letter of the contract is.

Note that I used a lot of wishey-washy words like tend... Each court case is different, and there is no real rule of what courts will do in any given situation. Consult a lawyer for legal advice about your specific situation.