> > Perhaps this approach would work well for ASL -- have the first half > > be plain-language descriptions of the rights and obligations, and > > refer to definitions that occur later in the document. People can > > then start at the beginning and stop when they feel they "get it", > > which might not require reading the whole thing. > > It can be argued (and has been, successfully) that such a contract can > only be valid if the buyer's understanding of those terms already > matches that of the seller, since you are effectively telling the buyer > that they don't need to understand the terms in order to understand > and agree to the contract.
Perhaps you have missed my point. I'm not suggesting omitting a definition of these terms -- I'm simply suggesting moving them downwards in the contract. There's no legal requirement to define the terms first -- as long as they are defined in the document. I think doing so would greatly increase the readability of the document. > The terms we define aren't that numerous and are defined in context > to what we need to say anyway. What you are really suggesting is > that we don't define the obvious terms at all and simply use them > with their assumed meaning, which is certainly an option. No, that's not what I'm suggesting, although it is, as you say, a reasonable option. I'm suggesting that the definitions are subsidiary and should be moved to a part of the agreement where they don't get so much in the way. > > By signing this contract, the parties hereby agree to abide by the > > contract. Redundant. Again, why does this precede the statement of > > rights? > > Because there is no signature. The clause states that you either agree > to all of these terms (hence no signature is needed) or you have no > permission to make copies, etc. Here you missed my point completely. I wasn't suggesting language -- I was making an analogy, which appears to have been completely lost. The analogy was to contracts which specify "compliance with law", "agreement to the terms of the contract", or other terms which are completely subsumed by the concept of legally binding contract. > > Again, defining Contributor and Contribution, while essential, could > > be done in a footnote. Bring on the meat! > > If it is essential, it cannot be done in a footnote. Legal text is > either defined prior to use or is allowed to be construed in the > reader's favor, which is definitely not the case here. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Terms can be defined later in the document, or in other documents incorporated by references. "Capitalized terms used herein shall have the definitions set forth in section 9, "Definitions." Done. Now they're down at the bottom, out of the way.
