I wasn't ignoring it; I specifically criticized it in detail. Your interpretation does not seem defensible or even coherent, but maybe you could propose less ambiguous language that clearly lays out the interpretation you have in mind. That way we can evaluate its tradeoffs.
I’m confident from PoV of any judge, the waiter in question gets paid for serving meals.
Similarly, a man purchasing physical stuff is giving money in exchange for the goods as opposed to advertisement services. Classic contract of sale of physical goods, nothing even slightly ambiguous.
It’s the same with ordering a sign. “Exchanging money in order to promote a product” doesn’t happen because manufacturing the sign is not a promotion. To promote something using a sign, you would need to post the sign in a publicly visible place. Manufacturing a sign and giving it to your client in private doesn’t promote the product shown on the sign.
