This summary seems to ignore that contract language is also a risk mitigation tool and is extensively interpreted by courts, making existing language and turns of phrase more predictable. Companies (particularly big ones with lots of contracts, like banks) want their contracts to be consistent so that they always have the same risks and responsibilities under every contract, so introducing new ways of saying what you think the contract means isn’t necessarily the same, particularly when some words and phrases have been tested in court and have special meanings within contracts.
This summary seems to ignore that contract language is also a risk mitigation tool and is extensively interpreted by courts, making existing language and turns of phrase more predictable. Companies (particularly big ones with lots of contracts, like banks) want their contracts to be consistent so that they always have the same risks and responsibilities under every contract, so introducing new ways of saying what you think the contract means isn’t necessarily the same, particularly when some words and phrases have been tested in court and have special meanings within contracts.
Since we're wordsmithing here, you used the term ‘legal contract’. A contract is a legally binding agreement. The phrase ‘legal contract’ is akin to ‘dead corpse’ or ‘wet water’.
This summary seems to ignore that contract language is also a risk mitigation tool and is extensively interpreted by courts, making existing language and turns of phrase more predictable. Companies (particularly big ones with lots of contracts, like banks) want their contracts to be consistent so that they always have the same risks and responsibilities under every contract, so introducing new ways of saying what you think the contract means isn’t necessarily the same, particularly when some words and phrases have been tested in court and have special meanings within contracts.
This summary seems to ignore that contract language is also a risk mitigation tool and is extensively interpreted by courts, making existing language and turns of phrase more predictable. Companies (particularly big ones with lots of contracts, like banks) want their contracts to be consistent so that they always have the same risks and responsibilities under every contract, so introducing new ways of saying what you think the contract means isn’t necessarily the same, particularly when some words and phrases have been tested in court and have special meanings within contracts.
Klement: "Lawyers use overly complicated language and too many long words."
Economist: ......looks embarrassed and changes the subject
Since we're wordsmithing here, you used the term ‘legal contract’. A contract is a legally binding agreement. The phrase ‘legal contract’ is akin to ‘dead corpse’ or ‘wet water’.
touche :-)