> The whole point of law as a profession is to create profitable confusion, ambiguity, and power differentials. That may be a profitable misuse of the law, but

> The whole point of law as a profession is to create profitable confusion, ambiguity, and power differentials. That may be a profitable misuse of the law, but it certainly isn't the reason the profession of law exists. The point of contract law is to allow parties to cooperate in the pursuit of profitable courses of action. Power differentials exist, but laws get passed to prevent egregious misuses of those differentials. That's pretty much what contract law is, is refinements intended to protect smaller stakeholders. > to bully the other party into believing they have to accept terms without challenging them. Let me give you an example. I am currently in the process of switching companies. My boss suggested an arrangement, and when he presented it to the company, they asked me to sign a separation agreement. The terms of this agreement, in the document, are to remain confidential for a period of 2 years. Now, there are a few aspects here that I have to consider. I do not want a legal requirement hanging over my head for years. Second, I do want the terms of the agreement and do not want to throw away the deal over it. Third, nobody wants to sue anybody, nobody is expecting the language of the agreement to ever see the light of day in court. The company has a specific goal in mind with the particular language they used on that contract. This all gives me negotiating headroom. By understanding what the company is hoping to accomplish, (me not leading an employee charge for better treatment) I can push for better terms without blowing the whole deal. I was able to extract a concession down to one year. But the reality is, I did all that, and didn't gain anything more than just practice honing my negotiation skills. I'm talking about the agreement now. Legally, I might be in the wrong, but as the company doesn't care unless they're faced with the precise situation that the language was inserted into the agreement to prevent, since I have no intention of doing that, I can pretty much do what I want. You can look at their pushing the agreement on me as the company trying to bully me into accepting terms. There are situations where that might be the case. I refuse to do business with anyone where I feel the relationship might turn adversarial. If a relationship were to turn adversarial, with a more powerful entity trying to extract things from me, I'd exercise mobility and ingenuity to get out of it and then try to learn from the experience. But generally, there are plenty of opportunities, especially if you live in the US, to where you don't have to swim with sharks if you don't want to. Contracts offer a framework whereby people can collaborate on endeavors that have the risk of turning into adversarial conflicts, the hope is that by adhering to the terms, you'll keep the bears at bay. Doesn't always work, but if your eyes aren't bigger than your stomach it usually works out. Etherium offers "Contracts 2.0", a way to have micro-interactions that wouldn't ordinarily happen because they're too legally-risky, the costs of the risk are far greater than the profit potential. The hope is not to provide iron-clad assurance that nobody will ever get sued, but to give everyone involved just a little more peace of mind. That could well be enough to allow interesting new commercial markets to take form.