Two things bother me: One is we put terms into contracts for when either party has to act in ways neither party may be happy about. This also helps to plan fo

Two things bother me: One is we put terms into contracts for when either party has to act in ways neither party may be happy about. This also helps to plan for risks. Shit happens. That is what terms are for. Missing a line = missing a term. Where that happens, one can totally expect the other party to make good use of the terms as agreed. Now comes the other major bother: When employing written contracts, unless one is rolling their own, we have a body of law and language fairly well debugged and mutually understood. Starting all that shit again as if code is law is going to be ultra painful! There was plenty of pain to establish the law we have today. This all will be no different. And still there will be law, so what is the point, unless the scope of terms is a subset of those allowed by law anyway?