Furthermore I believe we are one well-argued case away from concluding that consumer contracts are not enforceable if the language is too complex. Consider. You only have an enforceable contract if there is a meeting of minds. Automated complexity tests show that most consumer contracts require college level reading level to understand. Per https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/ it turns out that only 2% of US adults read at that level. Therefore no contract can exist with anyone in the remaining 98% of the public.
For comparison, 13% of Americans speak Spanish. Which means that if you the average consumer contract would be understood by more Americans if it was rewritten into plain Spanish!
We all know that this is true and the current state of affairs is beyond absurd. I do not believe that this absurdity will survive indefinitely.
We already have automated tests of language complexity. There already are courts that have said that materials have to be available to consumers in a form that they can understand. For example see http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Media/enews/2018/032118_plain_... for such a ruling in Illinois. To end the absurdity just takes one clear precedent saying that a contract is not enforceable if not understood, and cannot assume to have been understood by the average consumer if it requires a reading level of over X on test Y.
There are certainly terms of art that have well established meanings in certain fields but those should be used sparingly and don’t explain the massive amount of cruft in most contracts.
No one is well served by using deliberately arcane language.
Check out Ken Adams’ books and blogs[1] if you’d like to read more about this.
[1]: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/a-proponent-of-tested-contract...
EULAs all the way down...
Also, just having a lawyer read it isn't sufficient. They still need to communicate to you whatever information you need to be able to avoid violating the contract/law (if that is your intent).