[WalterBright]

> The entire point of a contract is to have a document that can be brought to civil court.

It certainly is not the entire point. The larger point is to clarify exactly what is being agreed. Memories, even among honorable people, are faulty. People can also legitimately disagree on their interpretation of conversations as they are having them. Contracts confirm to each party what was agreed to.

Nobody's memory is good enough to run a business without writing down all the agreements. And even if memories are that good, that doesn't help when you're out of the office and someone else is running it.

> Telling a company their contract is not legal can be seen as a little rude and could give you a bad reputation.

It is not rude to say "I don't agree with that term and it is unenforceable anyway so let's just line it out." It is rude to agree to something you have no intention of adhering to, and you will acquire a bad reputation for doing it.

[vinger]

In your opinion the main purpose of a contract is a memory aid?

Why bother signing them?

[WalterBright]

> Why bother signing them?

It signifies that both parties read, understand, and agree. This is so there are no bent feelings later when two perfectly honorable people disagree on what was agreed upon.

[vinger]

That's fair. I would go work for a competitor and not feel less honorable because I know that company would hire someone from the very same company I now work at and not feel they have done anything wrong.

When you are fighting a power inbalance guile is a very effective tool and nobel trait.