3 ms·
Laws are not written incomprehensibly at all. They use terms of art wherever possible, to reduce the need for interpretability in the future. For example, "bes
by mvkel 2y ago
Laws are not written incomprehensibly at all. They use terms of art wherever possible, to reduce the need for interpretability in the future.
For example, "best efforts" and "reasonable efforts" have specific legal and can't be used interchangeably.
When companies create "plain English" versions of their tos, they're introducing a bunch of unnecessary exposure without realizing it
- sosuke 2y agoIt’s awesome they try to define those terms. But I wouldn’t call that well defined at all. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6a4c20dc-594d-4756-b710-7a2dc213e8c0 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6a4c20dc-594d... I would say that math is unambiguous. Measurements are becoming more unambiguous. The accepted measurement of a kilogram equalling s Avogadro’s constant. Something like the number of silicon atoms in a 93mm sphere? But the definitions of best and reasonable are only accepted based off precedent and we’ve seen in recent history precedent in law isn’t as reliable or defined as we may have thought. Is there any language or any level of language that can remain defined across time and culture? So long as legalese requires interpretation to determine intent and outcome it can be expected be incomprehensible.