http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/may/11/terms-condition...
The author cites from the above-linked study that 58% of adults surveyed in 2011 would rather read an instruction manual or credit card bill than online terms and conditions. (I wish that study had clarified whether they had surveyed an equal number of men and women.) That link amongst almost every you read regarding reading contracts and whatnot always advocate reading through word for word, and making sure you understand everything. Two things prohibit this - time and ease of comprehension. If companies could bullet point, we'd all be able to get through it within a reasonable amount of time. Those bullet points would hopefully simplify the language and make clear for those who cite "difficult to understand" as the reason for why they don't read through terms and conditions. I imagine some might need to contact legal counsel for explanations every time they want to sign up for internet, use a new application, or even browse a website. These fees would be quite costly, and it is arguable that the total damages associated with failure to reading terms and conditions would not outweigh the expenditure for ensuring clarity and comprehension through legal counsel. However, despite the theoretical advocacy for thorough reading, companies do not actually want us to do this. If they did, I believe they would make it easier. Lawyers like convoluting things; they like leaving loopholes, and making language just abstruse and ill-constructed enough to deter even the most erudite from fully reading anything they've written. (I sound like I hate lawyers, but I don't. I took the LSAT's thinking maybe I would like to go to law school to learn that school of thought. But I digress…)
The article about the Londoners is just sad all around. Are they to blame? Are the companies writing these wandering tomes of terms and conditions? Surely there has to be a better way to outlay and convey the constructs of these user agreements.
The article about the Londoners is just sad all around. Are they to blame? Are the companies writing these wandering tomes of terms and conditions? Surely there has to be a better way to outlay and convey the constructs of these user agreements.