2 ms·
IANAL, but I think many of them write complicated contracts mostly in an effort to protect their clients. Simple contracts may not include verbiage that has sur
by adamc 18y ago
IANAL, but I think many of them write complicated contracts mostly in an effort to protect their clients. Simple contracts may not include verbiage that has survived court challenges.
I'm not trying to defend the system, just pointing out that lawyers aren't necessarily trying to do anything but make the system work for their clients -- which is what they got hired to do. If we want simpler language, we need legal decisions that will back it up.
- noonespecial 18y agoThat's the cruft I'm speaking of. The courts are almost slaves to precedent, no matter how bogus that precedent might be. Every time some high-moneyed legal team rams through some bogus bit of jargon, it appends itself verbatim to all of the contracts after that, almost like a macro, or worse, a virus. Like our own dna, over the years the simple genomes get loaded down with crap that has nothing whatsoever to do with the creature but replicates nonetheless.
- pelle 18y agoThis is a myth. Most contracts are not even written down and are perfectly legal. For example if you're in a restaurant and order food you have accepted a contract to pay for that food once you finish. The contract does not include any legalese it isn't even written down, yet is just as valid if not more so as any 100 page document filled with legalese. If this is so you can also write it in plain English. Anything that can be written in legalese can almost always be rewritten in more concise plain readable English.