Home > Snellville.Talk > Archives > 2006 > October > 05
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Frustrated 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
Services »
