Contracts are sort of like computer programs, read and executed by people -- by the parties; by constituencies within a corporate party; and sometimes by judges

Contracts are sort of like computer programs, read and executed by people -- by the parties; by constituencies within a corporate party; and sometimes by judges and juries -- instead of by CPUs. Except that, unlike people: [EDITED FOR STYLE] * CPUs don't come up with imaginative reasons why they supposedly needn't follow a clear, unambiguous program instruction. * CPUs don't experience buyer's remorse and decide they like another program better. * CPUs never have to be persuaded to comply. EDIT: Still, there's much room for improvement in the way contracts are drafted; someday there may well be standardized, machine-parsable ways of expressing common contract concepts, so that readers aren't forced to struggle through the wordsmithing whims of J. Random Lawyer. (Shameless plug: In that regard, see the Common Draft project that I've been working on, at http://www.CommonDraft.org http://www.CommonDraft.org. It's an organized compendium of contract term sheets and clause language, heavily annotated [and also very much an unfinished work-in-progress].) The long-term goals are (1) eventually to automate 80% of routine contract review work by programmatically comparing the preferred term sheets of Party A and Party B to generate a discussion list of the parties' points of disagreement; and (2) to provide an educational resource that will help people collaborate to do good things together.