I’d have to read the contract myself to see if it was so convoluted that they had no reasonable way of knowing what they were signing. However, if a lawyer looked at it and is perplexed, that certainly sounds like the contract was inherently flawed (no meeting of the minds possible).
It will be interesting, as a non-lawyer, to see how something like that would turn out, since normally I believe contracts like that are dissolved, not satisfied.
That seems to be different from the case in this article, where it sounds like the people kept taking money from the lender until they couldn’t afford it anymore, and then stopped paying the lender so the lender was out hundreds of thousands of dollars.