Hacker News Reader

Comment by burnte | Hacker News Reader

I always include a "plain english" copy of my contracts when I send them to customers. I state that it's there for reference only, not a substitute for a lawyer on their part, but that I've made the best effort to make it representative of the contract. Most of my client love it, some don't care, but I think it's something that has helped a lot of folks. I think most contracts should have one.

View on HN

Should there be an intermediary the client needs to sign that the summary isn't a perfect representation of the contract? Kidding, of course. Mostly.

No, because the signatory parties are still responsible for knowing what their signing anyway. If the summary was significantly different than the contents, then one MIGHT have an argument a judge could agree with, but in general, if you sign it, then you better have read it because you agreed to it, summary or no.

There is, but that's a detail omitted from the summary

No competent client, or their lawyer, should trust that summary.

No summary or contract is trustworthy, so no, they shouldn't trust it. Trust is between parties, not between papers. It's more of a shortcut and guide. If there's something in the summary that's a red flag, well we just saved a lot of time by finding the matter fast. If not, then we should have a good idea what's in the contract, and if that contract significantly differs from the summary, then the party isn't trustworthy. It's much easier to read a contract with an idea of what it's supposed to say, than going in blind. With the summary, your mind is more focused on "is X true or false" rather than determine what it says, THEN see if the details are kosher.

No, but the summary might help avoiding bothering your lawyer if you see there's something you don't like right away in the summary.

I guess that's mostly the point really.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com