Home > Snellville.Talk > Archives > 2006 > October > 05 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USFrustrated by legal jargon?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Arthur E. Marriott of Buford is a man with a plan — and a file. When the former Loganville resident mails in his next payment for telephone services, he will include a hefty file of letters, pamphlets, fliers and other correspondence the company has sent him.
The material is of little use to him, he says.
“I’d have to employ a lawyer to decipher it.”
For example, a sentence in one of his service agreements states: “The terms and conditions contained in this Agreement that by their sense and context are intended to survive the performance hereof by either or both parties hereunder, shall so survive the completion of performance, cancellation or termination of this Agreement.”
Huh?
Even if Marriott understood that, the sheer volume of reading material would require more time than he can or is willing to commit, he said. So he’s sending it all back.
I know how he feels.
Most of us are taught “consumer beware” and “read before you sign.” I try. But when every bill I receive, every service I purchase, every item I buy comes with an eight to 12-page list of terms and conditions, privacy policies, newsletters or other information, I often can do little more than feel overwhelmed.
I’ve often wondered if I am alone in this. Marriott lets me know I am not.
Depending on a sales person isn’t an option. As I looked through the agreement for my cell phone service, I noticed the following:
“You can’t rely on any other documents or statements on those subjects by any sales or service representatives … ”
So much for “a man’s word is his bond.”
I’ve read that some states have broached the issue of contract readability, mostly in specific areas such as medical insurance, automobile insurance, real estate and agriculture. There’s been discussion of the need to make privacy policies easier to understand. Also, the size of the print used in certain documents has been debated.
In Georgia, there seems to be no general requirements on the readability of contracts, said Jeff Lanier, deputy legislative counsel for the Georgia General Assembly. Lanier does recall a time or two when readability was mentioned in legislative discussions, but he didn’t know if it resulted in changes in the law.
Surely there are solutions.
How about requiring that companies make their contract agreements and correspondence to be written on a level understandable by a general U.S. audience – about a sixth- to eighth-grade reading level? How about requiring that they be summarized and consolidated to a length that can be read and understood in — say — eight to 10 minutes – about the time it takes to read the Declaration of Independence?
Another possibility might be to require public schools to teach all students courses in legalese and speed reading.
Just as foreign languages have become essential curriculum, the ability to understand the language of commerce is, as well. But public schools have their hands full trying to meet just the basics.
Lanier said that in certain industries — medical care, for example — almost every word in contracts has been legally debated and defined in court so there is a reluctance to start fresh.
Are you intimidated by the legal jargon of service agreements? Do you read and understand all of the consumer information presented to you? Do you think changes are needed?
Permalink | Comments (15) | Post your comment | Categories: Susan Gast
Comments
By Jan
October 5, 2006 07:55 AM | Link to this
I mail EVERYTHING in all my bills BACK to them with each payment, EVERYTIME. I doubt they care, but it makes me feel better and the postage is the same. Maybe a better idea is for ALL of us to mail ALL that junk to the woman that wants to ban the Harry Potter books, it would give her something else to do and Lord knows, she needs Something Else To Do!!!!!!
By Icy Stars
October 5, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this
I didn’t understand the question.
By LarryD
October 5, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
AMEN!! I am having a problem now with my homeowners policy after having our home nearly destroyed by fire 2 weeks ago. Thinking we were adequately covered and protected appears not to be the case. Example, replacement value doesn’t always mean what it implies. There are so many misleading clauses that they don’t tell you. The agent who sold us the policy can’t even tell us what it means!!!!!!!
By Jack Abney
October 5, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Also AMEN, But just experssing an opinion won’t change anything, its up to all who agree to let your senator and representative know that “we the people want the legalese simplified, Thanks, Jack
By DJ
October 5, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
You can just assume that all the legalease means that the company you are doing business with has a little legal liability as they can get away with. They take no risk, they never “acknowledge wrongdoing”, they never admit responsibility, and regardless of the circumstance, the burdon is always on the consumer. I’m sure you all have noticed the insidious new practice of forcing consumers into “arbitration agreements” (essentially giving up your right to sue in advance). That’s what we get when we elect anti-consumer (i.e. “pro big business) politicians. Witness the new bankruptcy laws as another example. It’s greedy, dehumanizing, and ultimately un-American. Oh wait - I guess maximizing corporate profits at the expense of EVERYTHING (including the majority of workers of those very corporations) IS the American value system these days. Lovely.
By Prootwadl
October 5, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
I think companies should be required to provide trained legal professionals for their customers to aid in interpreting such documents.
By LarryD
October 5, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Your right Jack, and i plan to use every media avenue i can to tell people so that maybe it won’t happen to them. This may cost my family thousands of dollars to get our AMERICAN DREAM back.
By Shooter
October 5, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
The purpose of all fine print BS is to cover their a55 in the unlikely event of a lawsuit,it says what they want it to say. When you get 4 pages of fine print in a cell phone contract who, do you think it might benefit? That needs to be on our Sonny do list, do it today!
By Steve
October 5, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
The lack of basic common sense in the world is incredible. How stupid is it to do something that, at best, is meaningless, and at worse, interferes with the process of crediting your account? That is what is accomplished when mental midgets toss a lot of garbage in with the payment. Are you the ame people who key cars, spit in food, and otherwise do things that accomplish nothing positive but make you feel better?
By Craig
October 5, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Unfortunatley, we live in a very litigious society. There are individuals who have abused the system in the past which has caused companies to send contracts and other type of paperwork with the proper legal definitions in order to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit.
Utlimately, the only ones to blame for this type of problem are the ones who complain about the language of contracts, etc.
When common sense comes back into American life, billing statements will be smaller.
Until then, life is what the courts allow.
By frank123
October 5, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Agree with Craig. We litigate everything especailly our “rights”. Anything that happens we want to blame it on someone else and get money too!! We blame others for our fat, our poor health, our falls, our laziness, and our own poor driving.
If you can’t understand the contract, don’t sign. If you have some understandings about the deal, send a letter outlining your understandings.
By Spartans
October 5, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this
A better subject would be a reminder to READ and UNDERSTAND the documents. As someone mentioned, it is ridiculous and useless to mail the documents back especially when those documents are your AGREEMENT and CONTRACT. This shows the mentality of people - defaults, repos, foreclosures, bankruptcies. Look no further than people like Clark Howard, of often tells people how to skip out on their debt. He panders to his audience, just as others do - the audience that lives on credit then wants to know how to avoid paying.
By KA
October 6, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
The trend in the practice of law has been to express legalese in plain language that is more easliy understood by non professionals. I do it in my practice. I suggest you call or write to the company and request a plain language interpretation of the information they sent.
By Bobby Ledford
October 8, 2006 07:45 PM | Link to this
Aw Susan,
Just mail in the check for the service and then toss the trash inserts. That is what I do with all of the advertisement inserts in my AJC each and every Sunday….
Bobby Ledford
By Conrack
October 9, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
“Basic Interpretation of Legalese” would be a great evening course to be offered at our Community Schools. Perhaps there are a few retired attorneys out there who would be willing to commit to help us ordinary folks at least be equipped enough to recognize a “gotcha” before it does. What say ye?