|
|
|
|
|
|
by nkrisc
1520 days ago
|
|
|
> Kind of makes me wonder if anyone actually bothers to read what they are signing. A lot of times, no. It happens to me even. I’m not a lawyer and I’m asked to sign contracts written by lawyers for other lawyers. I’ma reasonably smart guy and I can usually put two and two together in a contract, but often it’s written in a way that simply very difficult for me to understand and I can’t really tell what the contact is saying. It’s a burden. If the stakes are small I might just sign it. Otherwise I might ask for clarification but most times you’re asked to sign something it’s assumed you’ll just take a minute to sign it so now you’ve thrown everything off. I understand why contacts need precise language but I think it’s a bit unfair to expect lay people to sign contracts without a lawyer present much of the time. |
|
|
My experience is that contracts are easy to read - much easier than code. For one thing, contracts are written to be completely unambiguous to a human (a judge), a goal which few coders attempt.
The challenge is knowing and applying what isn't in the contract: The outcome depends on the contract & the law & the court. The latter two apply many rules, many of which are complex or require judgment, and many also require anticipating how a judge might rule. You can write whatever you want in a contract - 'if Employee leaves Employer less than 10 years from the date this contract is signed, Employee must amputate Employee's left leg.' (And the last sentence brings demonstrates first point about the importance of non-ambiguity: If it said '... their left leg', whose leg is it?)