I disagree. Contract language ends up in court because it is unclear enough that the parties can plausibly argue it means different things. Arcane word strings

I disagree. Contract language ends up in court because it is unclear enough that the parties can plausibly argue it means different things. Arcane word strings are, in my experience, usually just due to lazy copy and pasting from forms or false belief in the notion of “tested” language. There are certainly terms of art that have well established meanings in certain fields but those should be used sparingly and don’t explain the massive amount of cruft in most contracts. No one is well served by using deliberately arcane language. Check out Ken Adams’ books and blogs[1] if you’d like to read more about this. [1]: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/a-proponent-of-tested-contract-language/ https://www.adamsdrafting.com/a-proponent-of-tested-contract...