Well, not quite. Certain phrases have been tested in court. That is why arcane word-strings appear on contracts. Courts have established meaning and precedent for that word string. Going rogue with more readable language is asking for a ride on the litigation merry-go-round again, and nobody wants to foot the bill for that.

I am well aware of that. But those phrases also make up a small portion of most contracts. So I stand by my, "the vast majority".

Furthermore I believe we are one well-argued case away from concluding that consumer contracts are not enforceable if the language is too complex. Consider. You only have an enforceable contract if there is a meeting of minds. Automated complexity tests show that most consumer contracts require college level reading level to understand. Per https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/ it turns out that only 2% of US adults read at that level. Therefore no contract can exist with anyone in the remaining 98% of the public.

For comparison, 13% of Americans speak Spanish. Which means that if you the average consumer contract would be understood by more Americans if it was rewritten into plain Spanish!

We all know that this is true and the current state of affairs is beyond absurd. I do not believe that this absurdity will survive indefinitely.

We already have automated tests of language complexity. There already are courts that have said that materials have to be available to consumers in a form that they can understand. For example see http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Media/enews/2018/032118_plain_... for such a ruling in Illinois. To end the absurdity just takes one clear precedent saying that a contract is not enforceable if not understood, and cannot assume to have been understood by the average consumer if it requires a reading level of over X on test Y.

I disagree. Contract language ends up in court because it is unclear enough that the parties can plausibly argue it means different things. Arcane word strings are, in my experience, usually just due to lazy copy and pasting from forms or false belief in the notion of “tested” language.

There are certainly terms of art that have well established meanings in certain fields but those should be used sparingly and don’t explain the massive amount of cruft in most contracts.

No one is well served by using deliberately arcane language.

Check out Ken Adams’ books and blogs[1] if you’d like to read more about this.

[1]: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/a-proponent-of-tested-contract...

Not my problem. If this crap gets thrown out they will have to change strategy. The cost of snaring unwilling users in legal agreements should be high.

Well it is your problem, because this stuff isn't getting thrown out, and was in fact created by our current legal system.

TFA is about changing that, in which case the companies and lawyers will have to try some untested language or methods.

So I need my lawyer to read every EULA I need to accept?

The current legal system effectively requires that you need a lawyer for everything you do.

Also, just having a lawyer read it isn't sufficient. They still need to communicate to you whatever information you need to be able to avoid violating the contract/law (if that is your intent).

Indeed. Our legal bureaucracy is not built to empower the common man.

Or sign up for EulaAdvisor.com's service to translate EULA's into simple terms and recommendations, and use that to guide software usage decisions.

Yeah but who do I get to look at their EULA?

EULAs all the way down...