Simple contracts, no legalese

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I'm very keen to get my own standard contract put together but I'm also keen to have a contract that is simple, written in plain-english and avoids unnecessary legalese.

I quite like the idea of starting with something like the one discussed in this article although it would need some tweaking to make it more appropriate for what I do (programming rather than design) and how I do it (agile, with a desire to open-source as much generic code as I can). And naturally, I'd want to ensure it falls outside of IR35.

My question is, what are people's feelings on these kind of plain-text contracts? Would you use one or are you happier to stick with the wordy legalese?

[philip@wellwoodhoyle]

You have to know when "legalise" is required and when "plain speak" will suffice. I don't think a layman would know. It is far too easy to include a clause that you "think" has clear meaning, but what you think as opposed to what a client thinks can be completely different. "Legalise" has evolved over the decades (if not centuries) and there is a mountain of established case law to prove what a particular word or sentence means. The same words organised in a slightly different way in a sentence can give that sentance a completely different meaning for law purposes, but the layman would not notice a difference at all. It's that kind of thing that's your risk.

There's nothing better than having a properly drafted contract prepared by a solicitor who knows his stuff - they don't have to be hundreds of pages long and they don't have to be incomprehensible. A lot of the problem is that many contracts are drafted by people who aren't trained and experienced in writing contracts - people who "cut and paste" another contract and add a few relevant bits to it - some contracts drafted by agencies and larger firms are truly abysmal and useless.

The trouble is, "you don't know what you don't know" so you never really know whether all the important bits are covered, nor even whether any of the contract is enforceable at all.

As an example, in tax law, the word "gifted" has specific meaning, whereas a layman would probably think that the writer was illiterate and would change it to "gave". In a pub, you'd never say "I gifted my girlfriend a necklace" - but in tax return, you'd never say "I gave my business assets to my spouse".

I had a very quick look at the site referred to. All looks OK but there are a few things missing that need to be there. I would also point out that you should have the company registration numbers and not just company names on the contract - I've known of companies that have escaped their liabilities by swapping their names with other companies - a company can't change its registered number but it can very easily change its name.

[ASB]

Try and avoid any usage of the word "endeavour". Especially if prefixed by "best" "reasonable" or "all reasonable".

"must" and "shall" are good ones to avoid too.

You also need to be very careful with punctuation. It is very easy to completely change the meaning by mistake.

The reason contracts are generally written in legalese is because that is the only way to get the required meaning and obligations.

[Gonzo]

I'm very keen to get my own standard contract put together but I'm also keen to have a contract that is simple, written in plain-english and avoids unnecessary legalese.

Um, why?