A survey by the International Association of Contract and Commercial Management (IACCM) shows that only one in 10 people have agreed to the “easy to understand” of contracts. And only 17% were satisfied with the unification process. Those numbers suck. Why is it so, what are the consequences and what can we do about it? A new study comes to an end that credit card agreements are literally too hard to read for most Americans. At international law conferences I attended, delegates discussed the creation of user manuals to help users understand contracts. I think such a manual is an admission of failure. And it carries new risks. Why not write understandable chords from the beginning? Another example of improved usability in a more complex contractual structure is the use of diagrams. I made the diagram below for a framework agreement for one of the largest IT companies in Scandinavia. Apple is striving with its terms iTunesA different example of comic book contracts and the advantage of simplifying contracts is From Apple, which has made a comic version of its 20,669 word deal for iTunes in 2017. The draughtsman Robert Sikoryak made the artwork at the top and bottom. Apple has since created a version of the terms in 7000 words.
Software development is a challenge and a major source of overshoots in a COMPUTER project. Choosing the right development model can be key to a good outcome. One customer wanted flexibility, simplicity and a catchall format in a framework agreement designed to fit. As a result, the contract structure is an example of modular and targeted contract design. The texts of the treaty are brief and easy to understand. Mike Calhoun is a lawyer and president of the Nonprofit Centre for Responsibility for Lending. He thinks most lawyers would not understand some of the more complex credit card agreements. Is there a practical reason for this? Are pages with definitions; words such as “so far,” “compensation,” “guarantee” and “force majeure”; and phrases such as “notwithstanding the opposite,” “subject to the above” and “including, but in no way limited to,” necessary for an agreement to be applicable? Is there a counterintuitive value in the useless language of the boiler platform? A contract really needs 15-word strings of synonyms; all-cap, in italics, bold printed phrases that span several pages; heavy sentences with many semicolons; and outdated grammar to be worthy of signed? I think the answer is an emphatic “no.” CreditCards.com compared current credit card agreements with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) with those presented in 2011. At the time, GFPb called on credit card companies to simplify their agreements.
At that time, the Agency also published an agreement on model maps, which was only two pages long. The results speak for themselves. Simple language has saved GE Aviation`s digital services business a lot of time and money. And customers love it. One customer told us: “The contract worked really well; I prefer a more simplistic approach and written contracts in a way that I can understand. Another said: “The agreement was reasonable to work with her, as you saw with our extremely limited redlining, which was necessary to be executed.” “While there have been improvements in credit card agreements, they remain far too difficult for consumers to understand,” says Christina Tétreault, a contributor to Consumers Union, Consumer Reports` advocacy representative.