The Duty to Make Contracts Understandable

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.52214/cblr.v2024i2.14234
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

So what if consumers can’t understand contracts? They don’t read contracts. They can’t negotiate contracts. All their contracts have the same unfair terms. And nowadays businesses use algorithms, artificial intelligence, and social scientists to craft individualized contracts that hack consumer’s minds. Choice is an illusion. Consumer understanding is a pipedream. Even so, contracts should still be understandable. The opportunity to understand a contract is essential to contract formation’s integrity. While much contract literature focuses on how nonnegotiable contracts cause consumers to make bad deals, this Article challenges the concession that a deal has been made. Contract formation requires consumers have an opportunity to read the contract, which in turn requires consumers have an opportunity to understand what they read. Even if consumers do not exercise this opportunity, and even if exercising that opportunity only reveals how unfair the contract is, this opportunity must exist. The Article proposes that the Uniform Law Commission pass a statute requiring consumer contracts to be understandable to the average intended consumer. Such a law benefits sellers and consumers alike, removes the biggest and oldest impediment to contract innovation (lawyers), incentivizes using machines and science to improve contracts, and might just save transactional lawyers from having their jobs poached by technology.