|
|
|
|
|
by olefoo
5240 days ago
|
|
To the layman, much legalese looks and sounds repetitious because it is hedged with caveats and guards. It's precision is part of what makes it opaque. And yet, if one deciphers several T&C documents one starts to see similarities in structure and form. On this site full of people who are extremely adept at taking complex linguistic constructs and treating them as building blocks for even more complex structures, the temptation to abstract entire paragraphs into symbolic references is strong. We want to be able to minimize the cognitive load and maximise our understanding of the agreements we are being offered. There is no legal equivalent to widely used open source libraries where one can go to the parts bin and pull out the functionality one needs and only that functionality. And yet most of the law firms I've worked with do have boilerplate documents that fit their practice. It's a knotty problem; lawyers and programmers operate under different constraints, and things that are obvious to one may be complete mysteries to the other. If we had a legislature that worked and understood the internet, this sort of thing is exactly what they would be tackling... |
|