Don't want to give the necessary 30-60min? Don't write so long of a contract, or figure out a way to do without.
[1] 20% is to remove any margin of error in the calculation; the exact amount is configurable
It seems like something that is never taught yet is an ever present part of our lives. It also seems like one would have a hard time accomplishing anything today because there are contracts for everything, many with clauses one would otherwise not want to accept.
1) The language itself.
Contracts are written in English (at least in the U.S.), so anyone with a strong understanding of English can read one top to bottom and comprehend what it is saying.
Experience in analyzing writing (like from a few college English courses) can help a lot, both in learning to quickly parse sentences, and in learning to infer motivations from the language on the page. You always want to be able to answer "why did they write it this way? What are they trying to get?"
2) What is typical and standard in contracts.
You can only get this from experience--from reading a lot of contracts--because it's often industry-specific.
For example, many software contracts, even 6 figure enterprise deals, include an ALL CAPS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY. THIS SOFTWARE IS OFFERED AS-IS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY. WE DON'T GUARANTEE THIS WILL WORK FOR YOUR PURPOSES, OR INDEED, WORK AT ALL.
I'm exaggerating, but not by much. This is a totally standard clause in the software industry, so whether or not you like it, you generally just have to swallow it if you want to do the deal
Likewise, most EULAs are very similar to one another. Once you've carefully read a few of them, you can quickly skim for the important bits (copyright, liability, data sharing) on new ones.
3) What the law says.
Contracts can't break the law. For example a contract that contains lies would be fraudulent. A contract that says you need to speed or drive drunk is not enforceable. A contract that says you can commit murder would not protect you from prosecution.
This is probably the hardest area to build knowledge, without going to law school. For me, it has helped to read news stories and good forums like HN. For example, I know that non-compete clauses in employment contracts are unenforceable in California, because so many people have said so.
There are some lawyers who post here--grellas for example--and AMAs from lawyers on Reddit are helpful too.
4) What is enforceable? What contractual violations will either party invest in enforcing? Enforcement may require too much time or money (e.g., it's not worth suing over $1,000), or it may disrupt valuable relationships (e.g., if the contract is with a customer who accounts for 50% of sales, you are unlikely to sue them).
If I affirm a statement, it is generally understood to be me agreeing with/supporting the statement. But if I affirm an appeal, I am supporting the original ruling that was appealed, which is in a very basic sense the opposite of what affirming an appeal would be seen as to most people using the English definition.
If you don't have the confidence to ask for time to consider or seek advice about a contract you've been asked to sign, that is a different problem.
[1] In some jurisdictions there is a statutory 'cooling off' period for particular classes of contract (eg five business days for the sale of residential property) during which the purchaser can decide not to proceed, but there is no such need in relation to commercial transactions generally.
We encounter too many of these on a daily basis, on things required simply to participate in modern life, to read/understand the vast majority of them.
I also only referred to contracts that are signed. Signatures are important: as a general rule, you are taken to have read and understood the terms of any contract you have signed. If you agree to the terms of a contract without signing (eg many of the examples you mention, or oral acceptance, or clicking a button) there is generally no such assumption. Whether that will afford you any greater measure of relief if you later want to get out of the contract depends on the individual case, but there are circumstances in which it will.
As for the rest of contract law, this very thread exists because of the problem of people not actually reading contracts. We can't make people read them, and we can't make sure that people understand what a contract contains[1].
What we can do is show that one of the requirements for a contract[2] hasn't been met.
I'm totally fine with skipping this requirement if it is the 2nd or later time you've signed the contract. I would also say that a business that wrote the contract has obviously met the time requirement already. This types of details are flexible and open to negotiation.
I am simply suggesting that trowing a multi-page contract at someone and letting them sign it seconds later shouldn't count as a valid contract, and that we can now calculate a lower bound length of time. It would be nice if this encouraged shorter contracts in some situations or favoring common language over what most people consider obtuse legalease, but this is not required.
[1] but maybe we should
[2] the "meeting of the minds", or mutual agreement to the contents of the contract and requirements of each party
I think building in a cooling off period is not likely to incentivise people to take the time to read and understand their contracts. The experience of reading and trying to understand a contract is too unpleasant. Could the experience be made more pleasant? I don't know, but if you find a way to crack that nut, you might find a unicorn inside.
Should an individual be bound by an agreement they did not understand when they entered into it? Take phone contracts. Every time I've spoken with a sales person, they outright lied to me about the contract. I'm one of the only individuals who sit down and read the contract realizing where they lied to me. But friend and parents are far more trusting and have been tricked numerous times.
Given the evidence that companies are exploiting both customer's trust and customers limited understanding (especially when you consider that many below average individuals are signing these contracts), I feel these contracts should be just as valid as a contract signed by a 7 year old.
That, technically, is not what I'm proposing.
I suggest a burden on businesses or other parties that want to require a contract, in the form of a forced delay roughly proportional to the length/complexity of the contract they wish to use.
In practice, I expect businesses will find this unacceptable[1]. They would therefor work to find some alternative solution.
It might be that there wasn't a need for contracts in some situations, or that the contract language could be made much simpler/shorter. Alternatively, maybe a handful of "well known" standard contracts could become popular, similar in style to the Creative Commons licenses.
We cannot (and should not) avoid complex contracts entirely, but we might be able to fix a lot of common "simple" situations that shouldn't use a complex contract that few people read. By setting up the time burden, I expect complex contract (that might already have a "cooling off" period) wouldn't be significantly affected, but everyday small-time stuff will be incentivised to move away from the current practice of throwing usually-one-sided legalease at everything.
[1] I have often heard that the reason our current credit card system hasn't been updated to something with actual security (chip+pin, one time numbers, some sort of callback system, etc) is that any of these better methods would slow down transactions, resulting in less sales. Regardless of this being true or not, I'm attempting to utilize the perception.
It's a lower bound. Failure to satisfy that bound can then be seen as prima facie evidence that the has not been a "meeting of the minds", due to one party being given sufficient time to even read the contract.
As I tried to imply, there are various configurable details here that would need to be negotiated; I just believe that some sort of minimum bound should be established in law. The alternative is to allow the current trend of de facto contracts of adhesion to grow.
[1] or whatever the length of time is calculated to be - I just made up this number