Should Legal Language Be Simplified?

[DeletedUser]

I'm sure you all, at one point in your life, attempted to read the terms and conditions of a product, or even the small-print on a box of cereal, and found yourself bored and confused. It's a largely accepted fact that language of legality isn't pleasant or easy to digest.

There are long, over-stretched sentences that attempt to cover large amounts of information in great intricacy. There is the impersonal, distant bluntness that one tends to expect from a professional corporate identity. The purpose of this format is to close every loophole and to remove any aspect of ambiguity from the text. But is it all necessary?

Would it be inappropriate or harmful to use more relaxed terms and throw in more sentence variety? Would it be damaging if they simply stated what they mean, or is it entirely necessary to refer to line x of legislature y? Should more be done to make these documents accessible to more of the general public, or is it simply assumed that general rules pass by word of mouth? Is the excess use of brackets not damaging to the clarity of the text? Is it simply a way to intimidate the customer?

Here's an interesting organisation that is against the use of unclear and confusing language in official documents:
The Campaign for Plain English

Please feel free to discuss any form of language of a legal nature, the examples I've used are just springboards.

Enjoy!

 

[Varun]

Well, I know what you are talking about. My mum does translation work so I have come across several legal documents. They are confusing, they are sometimes extremely vague and chaotic but not always. Personally, I feel that the complexity should exist since such a language is extremely interesting once you get a hang of it. Also, it serves as a distinction of legality from others. Such language is only used where legal things are concerned. They are not used in advertisements, newspapers or anything else. I feel that that is the way it should be. Distinction to certain extent is a pleasure, too much is not too good. Also, such a language initiates new thinking. I mean, some people out there, take it as a challenge. Some really don't care.

But for those who care, which is a majority, would find it difficult to read a simplified form of it. Also, it would make things that are 'legal' to something extremely 'local'. We do not want that.

So, what I wanted to say is that the legal language is fine as it is. For those who do not understand can seek for simplified form of it but there is no need to remove the complexity.

 

[DeletedUser]

They are confusing, they are sometimes extremely vague and chaotic but not always.

Is that because they are not in English?

I agree completely, i do try to scan through things, but tend to give up.
When installing a game, never look at them... It is mainly when subscribing to something. They tend to hide the 'this subscription is free but you will be billed £40/month if you don't email us with a cancellation request within 2 days' somewhere in the middle.

 

[Varun]

Is that because they are not in English?

Yup. It is usually Hindi or Gujarati (Languages spoken in India) to English.

 

[DeletedUser]

I hate those things. Takes at least one paragraph to say something a normal person could say in a sentence...

 

[DeletedUser]

For once I agree with all the statements above and have no need to say anything until an opposing post comes into play

 

[DeletedUser]

For once I agree with all the statements above and have no need to say anything until an opposing post comes into play

I am agreeing with Shadis (for once)

 

[Thrillology]

I think they should just summarize all of that "extra stuff" then if someone requests, they can give them the full version rather than a summarized version, mostly for a lawyer's use, but for an every day individual, then summarizing a document and giving a full version upon request would be much better.

Now, I'm going to turn three sentences into three pages, if you excuse me, I'll be back in ten hours with a long, eye-straining, document. Hehehe.

Edit:
But yes, when I join a website or register for something, I always at least skim, if not read, the document and find myself with strained eyes afterwards, along with being slightly confused (or once, very confused, with a document that was using multiple "big" words in every sentence is unnecessary).

 

[DeletedUser]

Yup. It is usually Hindi or Gujarati (Languages spoken in India) to English.

so you too from India. i would just say that even if the language is simple and stuff, there are a lot of ways to hide material information even after displaying it. lots of loopholes everywhere in description. i have seen it many times and i am sure varun knows what i am speaking about. words can be twisted and bent in such a way that you might understand something differently that others.

that is why everywhere at last caption like this is given in products : It has been assumed that the reader has understood everything correctly written in terms and conditions or whatever.

 

[Varun]

Yup. You are right. Hidden clauses are always there.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not scared of it. I can dissect it. I would just need a high lighter, dictionary, note pad and a lot of time.

The reason it is there is to keep simpletons from knowing what they are saying. It's just job protection for lawyers.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not scared of it. I can dissect it. I would just need a high lighter, dictionary, note pad and a lot of time.

The reason it is there is to keep simpletons from knowing what they are saying. It's just job protection for lawyers.

just knowing grammar or having the dictionary doesnt help. the laws can really be very complicated and lawyers are really good at bending the laws according to them. come to india sometime nd you will see. recently there is a huge scam of nearly 500 million USD regarding the default in repayment of public deposits. till now none has been blamed because no one knows who is culprit. atleast no one can be proven guilty in courts.

 

[DeletedUser]

My answer is no. Reason??? I will create a senario.

Company "Fungames" makes a popular game which they then sell.

If there was not so much "legal talk" in the terms and conditions, then the owners of the product would have to rely on the personal morals of the person who purchased the product. In this day and age, many people have a horrible sense of morals, and will do anything to make a dollar. So, they have to define everything, if they wish to protect their product.

I believe this is a result of the separation of church and state in the western world, but i think that is another debate entirely

 

[DeletedUser4013]

I agree that legal language can be too complex at times. However, that is not to say that there is no reason to use certain wording or phrases. The main goal of legal writing is to convey a full and complete meaning with as much clarity and brevity as possible. Sometimes this means that odd turns of phrasing is used, but it is usually to male the sentence more exact in its meaning.

For referring to specific sections of legislation, this is a necessity. Simply quoting an act or law does nothing to further the argument. You need to show how and why that particular act applies. And while it may seem that the wording looks confusing, this again is to ensure that all eventualities are covered. In court, you will find that the judges will apply the usual and ordinary meaning of words and not read into what the word could mean in context.

Personally, I find that any lawyer that has to use verbose and complicated writings is an offence to the profession as it is our job to be able to communicate efficiently and effectively.

P.S. I need to change my signature

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah I was going to say that the point was to close any loopholes. Problem is, in my mind, the more complicated it gets in an effort to do so the more room there is for interpretation. I still say it's rigged to keep lawyers employed, if not solely because of that reason. I think it's good that judges pay attention only to what is supposed to have been said and not what could have been said.

 

[Varun]

That is true. But the legal language should be there as it is. To counter the loopholes, there are always fail safes and tripwires.

 

[DeletedUser]

That is true. But the legal language should be there as it is. To counter the loopholes, there are always fail safes and tripwires.

to counter these loopholes maybe the consumer courts should have a legal lawyer fully employed to make all the hidden meanings clear to the public when any product or anything similar is launched so atleast consumers know everything before they go for a product. this is ofcourse to protect the consumers. the corporates dont need protection like consumers.

 

[Varun]

to counter these loopholes maybe the consumer courts should have a legal lawyer fully employed to make all the hidden meanings clear to the public when any product or anything similar is launched so atleast consumers know everything before they go for a product. this is ofcourse to protect the consumers. the corporates dont need protection like consumers.

There are legal lawyers like that. There are financiers, advisors even. People just need the awareness.

 

[DeletedUser]

There are legal lawyers like that. There are financiers, advisors even. People just need the awareness.

i am not aware of a non profit autonomous body which functions like that

 

[DeletedUser]

i am not aware of a non profit autonomous body which functions like that

I'm not either but it sounds like you are trying to make a case for another surgeon general of sorts