Abstract
Contracts have been reviled since before the Marx Brothers' infamous "there ain't no Sanity Clause" sketch as being replete with duplicative, cumbersome, inartful, and sometimes imprecise language. My Article seeks to understand why practice apparently hasn't made perfect—why the contract production process hasn't been honed to a point that contracts are as clear, and only as long, as would seem to be optimal. I argue that the contracting production process combines rational, and what some would consider irrational, elements to create a serviceable, but arguably second-best, product. But I also argue that what counts as second-best in this and other contexts may be harder to discern than is generally thought.
Recommended Citation
Claire A. Hill,
Why Contracts Are Written in "Legalese",
77
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
59
(2001).
Available at:
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol77/iss1/5
