On writing quality in the real world · 10:00am Jun 12th, 2017
Due to a minor change in status, I was recently given an updated employment contract to sign. I'm sure most people would sign such a thing without looking at it, but I'm both pedantic and paranoid so I actually read the thing through, just to make sure it didn't do anything stupid - like forbid me from ever working for a competitor, or claim ownership of anything I create. Half an hour later, I handed the contract back - covered in red marks. Typos, bad grammar, organisational errors, broken numbering, things that make no sense. Every single page had at least one mistake. I told them I'd happily sign it for them as soon as they fix those little things.
A contract is something that governs our lives. If, heavens forbid, we ended up in court for some reason, the exact wording of the contract will be examined to determine who's in the right. Is it too much to expect such an important document to be well-written? I'm not expecting great literature, but shouldn't it be subjected to at least basic proof-reading?
Everywhere we look, words shape our world, whether they're laws, contracts, terms and conditions, EULAs, license agreements, patents, privacy policies or fair-use agreements. We all click through them all the time: "In using this site you agree to our terms and conditions. OK!" It would be impractical to actually read through every single one of them. And yet, precisely because nobody normally reads them, the majority of them are chock full of dumb mistakes. They're also typically far too long and say things that are utterly irrelevant.
It doesn't have to be this way. I've seen a set of credit card terms and conditions that was legally correct, well-written, easily understood, fair and fit onto a single page. There's nothing inherent in legal documents that makes them incompatible with good writing.
I presume the answer for why legal documents are so unreadable is that those whose livelihood is built on them don't want them to be read and understood by ordinary people. That it's key of the monopoly they maintain on the law, just as priests intoning meaningless Latin once had a monopoly on the word of God - until the printing press brought in an age where the common man was able to read the bible for himself in his own language. Isn't it time to do the same for legalese?
I wish I could tell you not to sign any contract, or click "OK" to any agreement, that isn't well-written. In reality that's not practical. You'd never get anywhere in modern life without swimming nimbly through the sea of such documents. But any chance you get to feed back on them and address their quality, please do so.
I wholeheartedly agree that typos and grammar errors should never be permitted in such documents and that more care really should be taken to make them clear and concise.
Such things are likely why some courts have had cases where the EULAs not enforceable because nobody ever reads them and it was such a mess, Which I feel is sidestepping the real issue.
I do have to confess though that I often skim EULAs on computer software but when given a physical contract to sign I make sure to read and clarify any confusion.