Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sigfried" data-source="post: 8886996" data-attributes="member: 1798">For context, there is a movement in the legal world in the US to try and make contract language easier for laymen to understand. Exactly how far that gets taken depends on the lawyer and their view.Ideally, contracts should be both easy to understand and specific so that judges and juries can adjudicate them fairly and clearly.I'd say this one goes a little too far in the common language direction. I was writing a couple of contracts for myself last year and did a lot of reading on this subject from articles written by lawyers. By and large, I support the idea that contracts should be as easy for a layman to read as possible, so long as it doesn't result in imprecise meaning.I agree that "Legal trouble" is too vague, but it is easy for a common reader to understand if you are sued or prosecuted or threatened with suit or prosecution.  There are no hard rules about how you can or can't write a contract, just what is considered good or poor practice.</blockquote>