|
|
|
|
|
by snewman
1120 days ago
|
|
I think the value here is around starting with a known default. If someone hands you a contract which consists of a known boilerplate plus three changes, then (assuming you're already familiar with the boilerplate) you don't need to carefully read the entire contract word for word, you only need to look at the three changes, plus whatever customizations you'd like to propose. For the vast majority of the terms where neither party feels a need to deviate from the standard, you get two benefits: (1) the drafting party's lawyer won't put in onerous terms just to see whether they can get away with it, and (2) you don't need to read it carefully, because you already know what it says. (This assumes some mechanism for ensuring that what is claimed to be a copy of the standard boilerplate, is in fact such, and has not been sneakily modified.) |
|
We don't yet have a straightforward way to do that for people who are using the contracts on their own outside the software. The best bet for now is probably something like a text diffing tool or Microsoft Word's built in comparisons.
We have some ideas for a native validator for the standards that IMO would be a better solution for those kinds of cases.