Need some guidance on interpreting verbiage in a last will and testament

[Whoops2u]

It's almost like lawyers profit from ambiguities.

 

[quincy]

It's almost like lawyers profit from ambiguities.

The more complicated the language,, the greater the value of those who can interpret it.

I have several doctors in my family and another family member who had round bald spots appearing on his scalp. One doctor diagnosed it as alopecia areata. Translation:: round bald spot.

Learning plain English apparently does not help support the high cost of earning a medical or legal degree.

 

[TrustUser]

yea, i write my trusts without any legalese - part of the reason why i developed my own

i want it clearly understood

and i do not want to give any credence to the argument that the grantor did not understand what he was signing

which is probably true most of the time with trusts drawn up by lawyers

 

[Dandy Don]

Husband inherits. The "otherwise" means if he was dead was the only way you would qualify to receive something, basically its saying you were second in line if he died. Yes, it certainly is confusing.

 

[justalayman]

In journalism, you are taught to write to an eighth grade level of understanding so the average person of reasonable intelligence can understand what is written. It would help if law followed journalism's lead in this regard - but as often as this has been debated in the past, lawyers seem attached to their "whereofs" and "heretofores."

So where are the journalists? I’ve read so much in the last decade that doesn’t reach the eigth grade level.

 

[justalayman]

True. But if lawyers wish to communicate effectively with the general public, they should be smart enough to speak in a language that is understood by the general public. Legalese is not that language.

But if they want to secure their jobs, they shall use all devices possible to cause confusion.


There are some times that what a layman sees as confusing is actually a more precise statement. That precision can mean the difference between an enforceable law or one ruled unconstitutional due to its ambiguity.

 

[quincy]

... There are some times that what a layman sees as confusing is actually a more precise statement. That precision can mean the difference between an enforceable law or one ruled unconstitutional due to its ambiguity.

General Electric has rewritten several of its contracts so the contracts can be read and understood by the average person. The results were discussed in a Harvard Business Review article published in its January-February 2018 issue.

"The Case for Plain Language Contracts" was written by Shawn Burton and can be accessed here: https://hbr.org/2018/01/the-case-for-plain-language-contracts

One example given in the article was of an indemnification clause. All but 41 words of its original 150+ word text were eliminated. And the word "indemnification" was removed.

A "compliance with the law" clause was reduced from 417 words to a single sentence: "During the contract term, we will comply with all our legal obligations."

Contracts do not have to be long and confusing to protect the legal rights of the parties to a contract. Proper word choice is all that is needed - and proper words can be found in plain language that everyone can read and understand.

 

[Stephen1]

Years ago I took a course on regulation writing. The instructor was pushing for more plain language writing. Some students said that the current style of writing was what their bosses seemed to want so why teach a plain language style. The instructor replied that (1) we should try the plain language style as some bosses might actually take to it and (2) even if the current boss didn't take to it that some day we would be supervisors and could promote the plain language style.

 

[quincy]

I have never understood the reluctance of some to make contracts understandable. The use of plain language contracts by GE demonstrates the advantages.

 

[TrustUser]

there is only one reason for language - that of communication

only one reason for communication - for others to understand what you are saying

i have never been a fan of using big words, or anything else that makes it less likely that the person i am talking to, will understand what i am attempting to tell him

 

[justalayman]

I’m not disagreeing in general but the writer does need to be cautious not to “dumb it down” in an attempt to make it understandable by more people but lose precision in doing so. Some words just don’t have a “generic equivalent”. Losing precisIon can cause as much confusion as a document written with too much fluff.

And removing indemnification? I believe that is one word that shouldn’t be eliminated. It is short and concise and should be understandable to the general populace. It would otherwise take many more words to communicate the same intent. If people cannot understand indemnify, then maybe they should do something about their literacy level.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I’m not disagreeing in general but the writer does need to be cautious not to “dumb it down” in an attempt to make it understandable by more people but lose precision in doing so. Some words just don’t have a “generic equivalent”. Losing precisIon can cause as much confusion as a document written with too much fluff.

I have written federal regulations, draft legislation, contracts, wills, trusts and many other types of documents. I never sacrifice precision in order to communicate in more plain language. But I find that in most instances it is indeed possible to be just as precise without using archaic legal terms or lots of long sentences and paragraphs. Much of the language you see in older contracts for example is actually unnecessary but included either in an overabundance of caution or to make the document sound seem more impressive. Or if they charged by the word, to gin up fees. I don't charge by the word. My clients pay me for effective documents that they can readily understand. And that's my goal when drafting.

And removing indemnification? I believe that is one word that shouldn’t be eliminated. It is short and concise and should be understandable to the general populace. It would otherwise take many more words to communicate the same intent. If people cannot understand indemnify, then maybe they should do something about their literacy level.

I have written indemnification provisions in plain English that never used the word indemnification. It is not a word that is so unique that it is absolutely necessary to get the precision you want. The agreements I drafted never once suffered in court for because they lacked that word.

There are of course some terms that have no adequate substitute and must be used. So I agree with the point you are making, but I have found in my experience that those are not terribly common for the types of situations the average person is likely to encounter.

 

[quincy]

... And removing indemnification? I believe that is one word that shouldn’t be eliminated. It is short and concise and should be understandable to the general populace. It would otherwise take many more words to communicate the same intent. If people cannot understand indemnify, then maybe they should do something about their literacy level.

"Limits of liability" works as well as "indemnification."

 

[justalayman]

i don’t agree unless there is a lot of other words along with that.

Limits of liability, to me, just means that is all the person liable for


Indemnification means somebody else will be paying on behalf of whoever is being indemnified.


So if I say my liabilities are limited to $1, it just means I will owe no more than that $1

But if you’re indemnifying me, that means YOU are paying that $1 for me.


That’s a huge difference, especially to you.


It’s just too clear and simple of a word to abolish.


But whatever works.

 

[quincy]

The elimination of "indemnification" seems to work. No one seems to have missed the word in the contracts where the word used to appear (and confuse).