3 ms·

So, as a lawyer, much like the teacher who did something like this: F** everything about this. This collective idea that it is fair to have a miles long contra

by jrm4 5y ago

So, as a lawyer, much like the teacher who did something like this: F** everything about this. This collective idea that it is fair to have a miles long contract that your average person is not likely to read is one of the most harmful ideas that continues to linger. It's especially pertinent to us in IT; people keep parroting this notion of "well, you used the service and didn't read the fine print and therefore now you are bound to every little thing they say," and its a major contributor to why privacy and social media are so bad right now.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
divbzero 5y ago
The UK government’s writing guidelines includes this section that describes how legal content should still be straightforward: “Legal content can still be written in plain English. It’s important that users understand content and that we present complicated information simply.” https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u...
jessaustin 5y ago
You might not long contracts, but there exist lawyers who do. Contracts will get shorter as soon as there is a consequence for writing contracts of excessive length. I.e., never.
dqv 5y ago
Is there really a point to the long contracts other than billable hours? Upthread, I speculated on that being the reason why "contract ergonomics" is not widespread. A while ago on the Verizon website, I recall seeing a "plain English" annotation of their legalese and thinking why not just have the plain English part without the legalese? And why the hell is it so long? That's the only purpose I can think of. Including every edge case in a contract just doesn't seem useful... there is going to be a dispute no matter what.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Contracts can get longer if either party is very distrustful of the other. If you expect the contract to be contested it makes sense to lock things down. An other reason is avoiding precedent and certain judgements from applying to this contract. I think this is quite common with financial documents, to the point where there is a lot of boilerplate that everyone understands without reading (just checking it is actually there). Sadly, contracts with the public hit both cases. Lots of precedent, and so many people you can expect a few of them to try and misuse the agreement.
- jrm4 5y ago
  I'd say that's generally right, though a slightly more charitable way to think about it is that it partly an arms race as well as a CYA thing -- after all, if you don't rigorously protect your client to the best of your ability you run the risk of getting in trouble yourself; so the things just keep accreting in terms of "what is expected in a contract."
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"well, you used the service and didn't read the fine print and therefore now you are bound to every little thing they say" Well, i did rear terns if tervice once. Bext week i get an email ' our new terms if service' So whats the point uf they can do whatever they want?

by jrm4 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

divbzero 5y ago

The UK government’s writing guidelines includes this section that describes how legal content should still be straightforward: “Legal content can still be written in plain English. It’s important that users understand content and that we present complicated information simply.” https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u...

jessaustin 5y ago

You might not long contracts, but there exist lawyers who do. Contracts will get shorter as soon as there is a consequence for writing contracts of excessive length. I.e., never.

dqv 5y ago

Is there really a point to the long contracts other than billable hours? Upthread, I speculated on that being the reason why "contract ergonomics" is not widespread. A while ago on the Verizon website, I recall seeing a "plain English" annotation of their legalese and thinking why not just have the plain English part without the legalese? And why the hell is it so long? That's the only purpose I can think of. Including every edge case in a contract just doesn't seem useful... there is going to be a dispute no matter what.

rocqua 5y ago
Contracts can get longer if either party is very distrustful of the other. If you expect the contract to be contested it makes sense to lock things down. An other reason is avoiding precedent and certain judgements from applying to this contract. I think this is quite common with financial documents, to the point where there is a lot of boilerplate that everyone understands without reading (just checking it is actually there). Sadly, contracts with the public hit both cases. Lots of precedent, and so many people you can expect a few of them to try and misuse the agreement.
jrm4 5y ago
I'd say that's generally right, though a slightly more charitable way to think about it is that it partly an arms race as well as a CYA thing -- after all, if you don't rigorously protect your client to the best of your ability you run the risk of getting in trouble yourself; so the things just keep accreting in terms of "what is expected in a contract."

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"well, you used the service and didn't read the fine print and therefore now you are bound to every little thing they say" Well, i did rear terns if tervice once. Bext week i get an email ' our new terms if service' So whats the point uf they can do whatever they want?