4 ms·
Seems to be against the common man is right. As the other commenters have said reasons are ,but not limited to 1. Moat for lawyers. If it was easy to write fun
by nnn1234 10y ago
Seems to be against the common man is right. As the other commenters have said reasons are ,but not limited to
1. Moat for lawyers. If it was easy to write functional law, their wages would go down.
2. Precise control on level of vagueness to achieve desired result by forcing subjective interpretation
3. Need for precision and build of technical terms by practitioners I.e. Lingo
People are experimenting with various things from Ethereum smart contracts to L4 a programming language for law.
I have also stated a github repo www.github.com/naveenmishra88/opencontract
So that we ccan collaborate on a crowdsourced plain English version of contracts that work for us rather than against.
- ge96 10y agoThat's interesting regarding the github repo to collaborate on "...plain English version of contracts...". I guess I just assume github is for code. It is free hosting and a nice version control tool to collaborate with. That must be a heck of a task too, so many documents. Wow.
- beaconstudios 10y agoI would have thought that "plain-English contracts" would suffer from some of the same issues of trying to simplify programming - in order to write a spec accurate enough to turn into a program, you end up writing a program. Legal loopholes are big business and making contracts specific enough that they avoid serious loopholes would surely require the high level of complexity used in modern contract writing.