IANAL. Just my sharing relevant observations/experience. I’ve had a reputation among most of the people with whom I’ve signed contracts for being the rare pers

IANAL. Just my sharing relevant observations/experience. I’ve had a reputation among most of the people with whom I’ve signed contracts for being the rare person who reads the whole thing. The author is right that it’s a good idea to push back on parts of the contract that don’t sit well, and that it’s a privilege to be able to do so. When I’m in a strong negotiating position, I’ve found also that the author is also right that the other party is usually truthful and also that they’re usually open to making changes to remove conflicts and resolve ambiguities. If you’re in that position, you’re usually much better off pushing back than accepting the contract as is. Even if you know your contract has unenforceable provisions, and you know they’re unenforceable, they’re a litigation landmine. Maybe they’re highly unlikely to become actual litigation, but if there’s even a possibility everyone benefits from eliminating it. If that becomes a point of contention, bonus points: you’ve found a red flag with this other party to your contract. Even if you move forward you have better understanding of where you can anticipate conflict. But most of the time, unless your contract is incredibly unfair or the parties are incredibly unprepared to negotiate its terms, you’ll just get the edits you want because everyone already agrees in principle that it’s okay to move forward.