3 ms·
No offense, but I do not think you understood what I was talking about. If you read the thread from the initial post we were discussing the possibility of havin
by hristov 15y ago
No offense, but I do not think you understood what I was talking about. If you read the thread from the initial post we were discussing the possibility of having two versions of the contract a legalistic one and a plain English one written in the same document. As I said, this is unlikely to happen because there is too much danger there will be a real or perceived difference between the two versions which will cause ambiguity down the line.
Of course if it is possible to write the entire contract in plain English only that is to be preferred. But that is not always possible. There are certain things that simply cannot be worded in plain English with sufficient precision.
- Terretta 15y ago> No offense, but I do not think you understood what I was talking about. If you read the thread from the initial post we were discussing the possibility of having two versions of the contract a legalistic one and a plain English one written in the same document. No offense, but that's exactly what I was talking about too. Please see my other comment in this thread, providing a real world example of such an "unlikely" document: http://bagcheck.com/terms http://bagcheck.com/terms > But that is not always possible. There are certain things that simply cannot be worded in plain English with sufficient precision. That is false.