3 ms·

If I can't trust the justice system to interpret a simple contract plainly, then I don't have a chance of actually understanding the legal implications of a mor

If I can't trust the justice system to interpret a simple contract plainly, then I don't have a chance of actually understanding the legal implications of a more complex contract.

derefr 10y ago
I don't understand this perspective. The justice system is like a computer. It has no common sense; it has no "Do What I Mean" button. You have to write things out in full explicitness, for it to do anything predictable/sensible at all. And just like with explicitness in programming, explicitness in a contract doesn't translate to "more things that could go wrong"; it's instead fewer degrees of freedom. More things pinned down; fewer left to interpretation.
- slavik81 10y ago
  I expect that unexpected results may come from unexpected scenarios, but not in relation to basic questions that appear to already be addressed in the contract, like "can I use this software?" If I can't trust that a statement means what it says, no amount of elaboration can clarify the contract.
- eropple 10y ago
  I get what you're saying, but calling it "like a computer" is a little misleading and feeds that weird habit amongst technical people of assuming that The Letter Of The Law is all that matters, when really it's the boatload of precedent, moral justification, and historical context that informs that law. It ain't hard fact until a judge says it is, and even then it can be moved with a big enough lever. That that specificity reduces axes of freedom on which to have what you think is obvious be not obvious is why I upvoted you, because that's the super important part everybody ignores.
  - derefr 10y ago
    Right, you can't actually "rules lawyer" in real law; there is a spirit of the law that informs connotation of the text where edge-cases are concerned. A good lawyer tries to phrase their contracts et al to expose the connotation of the relevant laws in the text, so that you don't need to read the laws, only the text. Sort of like explicitly including default parameter assignments to a function.
    - eropple 10y ago
      Yeah, totally--I knew you knew, just didn't want the implication to leave room to well-actually.
jaredklewis 10y ago
You seem convinced that your interpretation of a "simple" contract is the only obvious one and that any other interpretation is unecessarily convoluted. But I don't think that is the case at all. Simplicity almost always comes at the expense of clarity, which is why simple documents like the MIT license or the US constitution produce so many conflicting interpretations. Not because there are bad actors; just because it is unclear. If you ask a lawyer what is best, they will likely recommend a professionally drafted license like the Apache License v2. Just as you may not understand every aspect of a doctor's diagnosis or prescription, it may not be feasible to understand all the relevant statutes and case law. But I think it makes more sense to defer to expertise advice than to bury one's head in the sand.
pluma 10y ago
You're assuming that because a contract is simple you're more likely to understand it correctly. That is horribly misguided. In all likelihood you don't fully understand contracts regardless of length because you're unaware of the entire legal environment they exist in. The reason contracts often have weird stilted phrases is that they have specific meanings established over decades if not centuries of legal battles over those semantics. A good example for doing this right are the Creative Commons licenses: they come with a summary in plain English for humans and a full license text for the legal system.

If I can't trust the justice system to interpret a simple contract plainly, then I don't have a chance of actually understanding the legal implications of a more complex contract.

derefr 10y ago

I don't understand this perspective. The justice system is like a computer. It has no common sense; it has no "Do What I Mean" button. You have to write things out in full explicitness, for it to do anything predictable/sensible at all. And just like with explicitness in programming, explicitness in a contract doesn't translate to "more things that could go wrong"; it's instead fewer degrees of freedom. More things pinned down; fewer left to interpretation.

slavik81 10y ago
I expect that unexpected results may come from unexpected scenarios, but not in relation to basic questions that appear to already be addressed in the contract, like "can I use this software?" If I can't trust that a statement means what it says, no amount of elaboration can clarify the contract.
eropple 10y ago
I get what you're saying, but calling it "like a computer" is a little misleading and feeds that weird habit amongst technical people of assuming that The Letter Of The Law is all that matters, when really it's the boatload of precedent, moral justification, and historical context that informs that law. It ain't hard fact until a judge says it is, and even then it can be moved with a big enough lever. That that specificity reduces axes of freedom on which to have what you think is obvious be not obvious is why I upvoted you, because that's the super important part everybody ignores.
- derefr 10y ago
  Right, you can't actually "rules lawyer" in real law; there is a spirit of the law that informs connotation of the text where edge-cases are concerned. A good lawyer tries to phrase their contracts et al to expose the connotation of the relevant laws in the text, so that you don't need to read the laws, only the text. Sort of like explicitly including default parameter assignments to a function.
  - eropple 10y ago
    Yeah, totally--I knew you knew, just didn't want the implication to leave room to well-actually.

jaredklewis 10y ago

You seem convinced that your interpretation of a "simple" contract is the only obvious one and that any other interpretation is unecessarily convoluted. But I don't think that is the case at all. Simplicity almost always comes at the expense of clarity, which is why simple documents like the MIT license or the US constitution produce so many conflicting interpretations. Not because there are bad actors; just because it is unclear. If you ask a lawyer what is best, they will likely recommend a professionally drafted license like the Apache License v2. Just as you may not understand every aspect of a doctor's diagnosis or prescription, it may not be feasible to understand all the relevant statutes and case law. But I think it makes more sense to defer to expertise advice than to bury one's head in the sand.

pluma 10y ago

You're assuming that because a contract is simple you're more likely to understand it correctly. That is horribly misguided. In all likelihood you don't fully understand contracts regardless of length because you're unaware of the entire legal environment they exist in. The reason contracts often have weird stilted phrases is that they have specific meanings established over decades if not centuries of legal battles over those semantics. A good example for doing this right are the Creative Commons licenses: they come with a summary in plain English for humans and a full license text for the legal system.