Contracts ought to be conversations
In order to ensure that both parties understand the terms, a change should be made to the way we ordinarily contract with one another. Parties should engage in a recorded (preferably written or typed) conversation concerning the possible arrangement.
I agree
Side Score: 10
|
 |
I disagree
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Written contracts have their problems, but this approach seems even more problematic. For one, transcription is very time intensive and involved; contracting costs would jump, and even simple engagements would become cost prohibitive. More importantly, this alternative seems to assume that conversations will be more clear than the written contract which is not necessarily true. People walk away from verbal exchanges with different impressions of the conversation quite often, in no small part owing to the more casual nature and impreciseness of language used in verbal exchanges. Side: I disagree
0
points
I disagree with the recorded conversation deal, as it just seems like it would add a ton of overhead to the whole process. Rather, I think there should be tighter regulations on written contracts. 'Legalese' should be done away with altogether, as it frequently is used to obscure the specifics in a contract. I have no clue what objective standards we could set, but the end result should be that any contract can be comprehensible to the average high school student. I'd also suggest a word limit for a contact to be binding, to minimize the usage of 'fine print' and the like- and no cross referencing other documents either; all of the contracts terms must be spelled out in the contract itself without having to reference other documents. Perhaps even a whitelist of approved words to use in a contract may be in order. Side: I disagree
|
