I specifically said precision and not clarity, which is not the same. The thing is, though, that legal language is not "designed" for anything, in fact it is no

I specifically said precision and not clarity, which is not the same. The thing is, though, that legal language is not "designed" for anything, in fact it is not "designed" at all. As for being constructed deliberately to obfuscate its purpose, all I can say is that that's not my experience and it seems like a pretty self-defeating aim to me. For legal language to have any value at all, you have to be reasonably certain that a court would give effect to your intended meaning, and the more you obfuscate your intentions, the bigger the risk that it will be construed in an unintended way by a court. > Plain clear language with defined terms is legally binding and difficult to circumvent. As soon as you introduce defined terms, it is instantly less plain and less clear.