32 ms·

We have the ability to calculate a rough estimate of the time required to read a given text. This means we can create a law that states that for a contract to b

by pdkl95 12y ago

We have the ability to calculate a rough estimate of the time required to read a given text. This means we can create a law that states that for a contract to be valid, each party must be given at least 80% of that time[1] for the contract to be considered valid. Don't want to give the necessary 30-60min? Don't write so long of a contract, or figure out a way to do without. [1] 20% is to remove any margin of error in the calculation; the exact amount is configurable

ta75757 12y ago
Read or understand? This is legalese we're talking about.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  Understanding is beyond the scope of what I'd like to see fixed in contract law. The idea is that if you have a 5 page contract, it should have taken at least 8 minutes[1] to read regardless of if it is legalease or written in a plain style. It's a lower bound. Failure to satisfy that bound can then be seen as prima facie evidence that the has not been a "meeting of the minds", due to one party being given sufficient time to even read the contract. As I tried to imply, there are various configurable details here that would need to be negotiated; I just believe that some sort of minimum bound should be established in law. The alternative is to allow the current trend of de facto contracts of adhesion to grow. [1] or whatever the length of time is calculated to be - I just made up this number
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    So effectively, the individual signing must spend 8 minutes doing nothing but looking at the contract (even if they are daydreaming). I can see where this is would be a concrete improvement, even if just a minor one to a much larger problem.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    So effectively, the individual signing must spend 8 minutes doing nothing but looking at the contract (even if they are daydreaming). I can see where this is would be a concrete improvement, even if just a minor one to a much larger problem.
jamesk_au 12y ago
There's no need for such a law.[1] If you haven't read it, or if you don't understand it, don't sign it. Problem solved. If you don't have the confidence to ask for time to consider or seek advice about a contract you've been asked to sign, that is a different problem. [1] In some jurisdictions there is a statutory 'cooling off' period for particular classes of contract (eg five business days for the sale of residential property) during which the purchaser can decide not to proceed, but there is no such need in relation to commercial transactions generally.
- falcolas 12y ago
  Have you read and understood the T&C for Hacker News? How about your ISP? The captive portal in your local coffee shop? Your computer's/phone's OS upgrades? Your car's ECM (it's probably buried in the user manual)? We encounter too many of these on a daily basis, on things required simply to participate in modern life, to read/understand the vast majority of them.
  - jamesk_au 12y ago
    The proposition that it is impractical to read and understand every contract we enter into does not present a need for a law invalidating or avoiding every contract where insufficient time to read and understand it is not given. I think the only consequence of the proposed law (if that proposition is correct) would be to destroy contractual certainty for a time; the premise denies that anyone would actually use the period of time for its intended purpose. I also only referred to contracts that are signed. Signatures are important: as a general rule, you are taken to have read and understood the terms of any contract you have signed. If you agree to the terms of a contract without signing (eg many of the examples you mention, or oral acceptance, or clicking a button) there is generally no such assumption. Whether that will afford you any greater measure of relief if you later want to get out of the contract depends on the individual case, but there are circumstances in which it will.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  In theory, the "cooling off" periods you mention should cover the "minimum time" requirements that I'm suggesting. The devil is in the details, of course, but such periods where the contract being negotiated can still be called off would account for my concerns. As for the rest of contract law, this very thread exists because of the problem of people not actually reading contracts. We can't make people read them, and we can't make sure that people understand what a contract contains[1]. What we can do is show that one of the requirements for a contract[2] hasn't been met. I'm totally fine with skipping this requirement if it is the 2nd or later time you've signed the contract. I would also say that a business that wrote the contract has obviously met the time requirement already. This types of details are flexible and open to negotiation. I am simply suggesting that trowing a multi-page contract at someone and letting them sign it seconds later shouldn't count as a valid contract, and that we can now calculate a lower bound length of time. It would be nice if this encouraged shorter contracts in some situations or favoring common language over what most people consider obtuse legalease, but this is not required. [1] but maybe we should [2] the "meeting of the minds", or mutual agreement to the contents of the contract and requirements of each party
chermanowicz 12y ago
I'm curious, at what point in time did you (everyone on HN) learn about contracts? Did your father or teacher sit you down one day and say "here's this piece of paper that is legally binding and here's how to understand it and here's everything you need to know about contract law and your legal obligations, etc.?" It seems like something that is never taught yet is an ever present part of our lives. It also seems like one would have a hard time accomplishing anything today because there are contracts for everything, many with clauses one would otherwise not want to accept.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  There are three levels to understanding contracts. 1) The language itself. Contracts are written in English (at least in the U.S.), so anyone with a strong understanding of English can read one top to bottom and comprehend what it is saying. Experience in analyzing writing (like from a few college English courses) can help a lot, both in learning to quickly parse sentences, and in learning to infer motivations from the language on the page. You always want to be able to answer "why did they write it this way? What are they trying to get?" 2) What is typical and standard in contracts. You can only get this from experience--from reading a lot of contracts--because it's often industry-specific. For example, many software contracts, even 6 figure enterprise deals, include an ALL CAPS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY. THIS SOFTWARE IS OFFERED AS-IS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY. WE DON'T GUARANTEE THIS WILL WORK FOR YOUR PURPOSES, OR INDEED, WORK AT ALL. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. This is a totally standard clause in the software industry, so whether or not you like it, you generally just have to swallow it if you want to do the deal Likewise, most EULAs are very similar to one another. Once you've carefully read a few of them, you can quickly skim for the important bits (copyright, liability, data sharing) on new ones. 3) What the law says. Contracts can't break the law. For example a contract that contains lies would be fraudulent. A contract that says you need to speed or drive drunk is not enforceable. A contract that says you can commit murder would not protect you from prosecution. This is probably the hardest area to build knowledge, without going to law school. For me, it has helped to read news stories and good forums like HN. For example, I know that non-compete clauses in employment contracts are unenforceable in California, because so many people have said so. There are some lawyers who post here--grellas for example--and AMAs from lawyers on Reddit are helpful too.

by pdkl95 12y ago

ta75757 12y ago

Read or understand? This is legalese we're talking about.

pdkl95 12y ago
Understanding is beyond the scope of what I'd like to see fixed in contract law. The idea is that if you have a 5 page contract, it should have taken at least 8 minutes[1] to read regardless of if it is legalease or written in a plain style. It's a lower bound. Failure to satisfy that bound can then be seen as prima facie evidence that the has not been a "meeting of the minds", due to one party being given sufficient time to even read the contract. As I tried to imply, there are various configurable details here that would need to be negotiated; I just believe that some sort of minimum bound should be established in law. The alternative is to allow the current trend of de facto contracts of adhesion to grow. [1] or whatever the length of time is calculated to be - I just made up this number
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  So effectively, the individual signing must spend 8 minutes doing nothing but looking at the contract (even if they are daydreaming). I can see where this is would be a concrete improvement, even if just a minor one to a much larger problem.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  So effectively, the individual signing must spend 8 minutes doing nothing but looking at the contract (even if they are daydreaming). I can see where this is would be a concrete improvement, even if just a minor one to a much larger problem.

jamesk_au 12y ago

There's no need for such a law.[1] If you haven't read it, or if you don't understand it, don't sign it. Problem solved. If you don't have the confidence to ask for time to consider or seek advice about a contract you've been asked to sign, that is a different problem. [1] In some jurisdictions there is a statutory 'cooling off' period for particular classes of contract (eg five business days for the sale of residential property) during which the purchaser can decide not to proceed, but there is no such need in relation to commercial transactions generally.

falcolas 12y ago
Have you read and understood the T&C for Hacker News? How about your ISP? The captive portal in your local coffee shop? Your computer's/phone's OS upgrades? Your car's ECM (it's probably buried in the user manual)? We encounter too many of these on a daily basis, on things required simply to participate in modern life, to read/understand the vast majority of them.
- jamesk_au 12y ago
  The proposition that it is impractical to read and understand every contract we enter into does not present a need for a law invalidating or avoiding every contract where insufficient time to read and understand it is not given. I think the only consequence of the proposed law (if that proposition is correct) would be to destroy contractual certainty for a time; the premise denies that anyone would actually use the period of time for its intended purpose. I also only referred to contracts that are signed. Signatures are important: as a general rule, you are taken to have read and understood the terms of any contract you have signed. If you agree to the terms of a contract without signing (eg many of the examples you mention, or oral acceptance, or clicking a button) there is generally no such assumption. Whether that will afford you any greater measure of relief if you later want to get out of the contract depends on the individual case, but there are circumstances in which it will.
pdkl95 12y ago
In theory, the "cooling off" periods you mention should cover the "minimum time" requirements that I'm suggesting. The devil is in the details, of course, but such periods where the contract being negotiated can still be called off would account for my concerns. As for the rest of contract law, this very thread exists because of the problem of people not actually reading contracts. We can't make people read them, and we can't make sure that people understand what a contract contains[1]. What we can do is show that one of the requirements for a contract[2] hasn't been met. I'm totally fine with skipping this requirement if it is the 2nd or later time you've signed the contract. I would also say that a business that wrote the contract has obviously met the time requirement already. This types of details are flexible and open to negotiation. I am simply suggesting that trowing a multi-page contract at someone and letting them sign it seconds later shouldn't count as a valid contract, and that we can now calculate a lower bound length of time. It would be nice if this encouraged shorter contracts in some situations or favoring common language over what most people consider obtuse legalease, but this is not required. [1] but maybe we should [2] the "meeting of the minds", or mutual agreement to the contents of the contract and requirements of each party

chermanowicz 12y ago

I'm curious, at what point in time did you (everyone on HN) learn about contracts? Did your father or teacher sit you down one day and say "here's this piece of paper that is legally binding and here's how to understand it and here's everything you need to know about contract law and your legal obligations, etc.?" It seems like something that is never taught yet is an ever present part of our lives. It also seems like one would have a hard time accomplishing anything today because there are contracts for everything, many with clauses one would otherwise not want to accept.

snowwrestler 12y ago
There are three levels to understanding contracts. 1) The language itself. Contracts are written in English (at least in the U.S.), so anyone with a strong understanding of English can read one top to bottom and comprehend what it is saying. Experience in analyzing writing (like from a few college English courses) can help a lot, both in learning to quickly parse sentences, and in learning to infer motivations from the language on the page. You always want to be able to answer "why did they write it this way? What are they trying to get?" 2) What is typical and standard in contracts. You can only get this from experience--from reading a lot of contracts--because it's often industry-specific. For example, many software contracts, even 6 figure enterprise deals, include an ALL CAPS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY. THIS SOFTWARE IS OFFERED AS-IS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY. WE DON'T GUARANTEE THIS WILL WORK FOR YOUR PURPOSES, OR INDEED, WORK AT ALL. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. This is a totally standard clause in the software industry, so whether or not you like it, you generally just have to swallow it if you want to do the deal Likewise, most EULAs are very similar to one another. Once you've carefully read a few of them, you can quickly skim for the important bits (copyright, liability, data sharing) on new ones. 3) What the law says. Contracts can't break the law. For example a contract that contains lies would be fraudulent. A contract that says you need to speed or drive drunk is not enforceable. A contract that says you can commit murder would not protect you from prosecution. This is probably the hardest area to build knowledge, without going to law school. For me, it has helped to read news stories and good forums like HN. For example, I know that non-compete clauses in employment contracts are unenforceable in California, because so many people have said so. There are some lawyers who post here--grellas for example--and AMAs from lawyers on Reddit are helpful too.