The fact that a reasonable person would conclude that the words used leave both possibilities open shows that applying the Objective Intent Test does not resolve the question of whether George is obligated to pay while Richard is in the army.
This is why the Spaulding court takes a different approach. It asks, "How would a reasonable person interpret the words taking into account (1) the main goal of the promise and (2) the unforeseen events that have arisen since the promise was made?"