The famous example in law school being writing a agreement on a cocktail napkin being an enforceable contract.
The legal system may be in need of reforms, but in these instances the complexity and length of tech company TOS or PP is a direct result of these entities having an army of in-house and outside counsel looking after their own interests.
There is simply a power imbalance between FAANG companies and even their most legally savvy and educated user. This has nothing to do with the courts, and if you don't believe me, then reach out to one of the FAANG legal departments and tell them you want to use their service but need to negotiate the TOS/PP first.
How many lawyers write their employment agreements, per-nuptual agreements, wills, or letters of engagement on cocktail napkins? Sure, it'd be enforceable, but almost worthless.
Pre-nups and wills are great examples of how simple agreements can be...prior to the internet you could pick up standard forms from stationary stores.
Google "contract on a cocktail napkin", most of the top results will be for million dollar contracts on cocktail napkins...so maybe we just have a different opinion about "enforceable, but almost worthless."
Contracts are only important when there is a disagreement. When everyone is getting along (which is most of the time), the contract can be verbal, cocktail, form, or lengthy, and it doesn't matter. You can see this from the fact that the most contentious subjects (such as construction) have the most rigorous contracts.
IANAL, but I have never heard of a lawyer writing a contract on a napkin, or advising a client to do so; and they say verbal contracts are worth the paper they're written on.
>IANAL, but I have never heard of a lawyer writing a contract on a napkin, or advising a client to do so
Where did I or anyone say that is what lawyers advise. In fact I specifically said it is because of their army of lawyers tech companies have long and complex TOS and PP.
The point is TOS and PP are not complex because Courts require them, and the cocktail napkin contracts are examples (the pinnacle law school example) of how simple contracts can be while still being enforceable.
>Contracts are only important when there is a disagreement.
No, contracts are most important before the disagreement because they are what help avoid the disagreement. It would be very difficult to explain in this forum, but if you know what Summary Judgment is, breach of contract cases essentially never end in summary judgement, which is actually very counter intuitive because one would think with all breach of contract case should end in summary judgement...because the contract should speak for itself right? In other word one would think either the contract was performed/breached or it wasn't right? The thing is whether a contract was performed or breached is a question of fact for the fact finder; thus, contract cases never end at summary judgement and would always have to go to a finder of fact (judge or jury). You would probably have to spend a semester or 2 to fully grasp this concept and even then, it probably takes some actual practice of law with contract cases to fully grasp why contracts do not resolve contractual disagreements. The reality is once there is a dispute and you are seeking enforcement you would much rather have the cocktail napkin than a complex agreement, it will save you years of litigation and the cost of the same.
Those articles are about expensive lawsuits fighting over the meaning of the contract. So they are almost worthless at their single function, which is to form an agreement.
>Those articles are about expensive lawsuits fighting over the meaning of the contract
Yes that is generally what breach of contract cases are about...do you think a breach of contract case for extremely complex agreements are any different in nature?
Do you think there are more or less questions regarding interpretation, intent and meaning, with respect to complex agreements or simple agreements? In my experience litigating these matters the more complex an agreement the more protracted the litigation, in fact in some of the jurisdiction I practice there are specific divisions (complex civil litigation divisions) where those types of agreements generally end up.
No the Courts do not require complexity.
The famous example in law school being writing a agreement on a cocktail napkin being an enforceable contract.
The legal system may be in need of reforms, but in these instances the complexity and length of tech company TOS or PP is a direct result of these entities having an army of in-house and outside counsel looking after their own interests.
There is simply a power imbalance between FAANG companies and even their most legally savvy and educated user. This has nothing to do with the courts, and if you don't believe me, then reach out to one of the FAANG legal departments and tell them you want to use their service but need to negotiate the TOS/PP first.