Why Clear Contracts Matter More Than Ever

Contracts are the backbone of modern life. Whether people are downloading an app, taking on a new job, or buying a house, contracts are the documents that maintain order in society. In today’s society, people encounter contracts more than ever before, often ignoring the true consequences of the writing. The digital world has transformed these agreements into long, overly complicated words that force the user into agreement without knowledge. Since contracts affect nearly every aspect of life, the clarity and equity of these statements are a major public concern. One-sided contracts can create imbalances between the user and the creator, leaving everyday people limited in ways they can’t comprehend. Although U.S contract law is meant to ensure reliable and safe agreements, the effectiveness of these contracts is entirely dependent on whether these agreements are clear and fair. Courts should focus efforts on enforcing contracts that are clear and fair. Courts already contain legislation that prioritizes transparency and avoids exploitation. Expanding this principle into contract law would make it stronger and protect the values that contract law was originally based on.

Traditional contract law requires offer, acceptance, thought, and legality. In short, one person or company must make an offer to another, and the second party must consider this agreement and eventually provide acceptance. This entire process must be done legally and fairly on both ends. These elements ensure that an agreement is real and enforceable.

Throughout history, contract law has been debated in multiple courts and legal settings. For example, the case Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) was built around contract law. The case arose when the company falsely advertised that its product would prevent sickness. The company proposed that they would provide repayment to anyone who had contracted influenza. The court decided that the company's advertisement had formed a valid contract, because it contained specific terms. Essentially siding with the civilian. Additionally, in the case of Lucy v. Zehmer (1954), the husband(Zehmer) informally wrote a contract to his wife(Lucy) on a napkin, stating his intent to sell his land. Later, Lucy took this seriously and involved legal officials, while Zehmer confirmed that his intent was just a ruse. Eventually, both took this to court, and the court concluded that Zehmer had created an official contract and was thus required to follow through. 

Both cases that courts have prioritized clear and concise agreements for a long period of time. When terms are understandable, and a clear intent is present, courts treat the “contract”, in any shape or form, as legitimate. The historical emphasis on transparency reveals the need for further clarity and boundaries in modern life, especially concerning contract law. As contracts have shifted from negotiated documents to pre-written digital forms, their clarity has declined greatly. Digital platforms often present contracts in long, unnecessarily complex language that ordinary consumers cannot comprehend. For example, in the Deloitte Consumer Survey(2017). 91% of consumers reported that they consent to digital terms without entirely reading them, as the terms are often too long or complicated. Earlier in the case Specht vs. Netscape(2002), the court refused to enforce an online arbitration clause because the terms were not clearly displayed. Users were expected to scroll to the bottom to see them. This case reveals that courts do not recognize hidden or concealed terms that do not provide informed consent. If users do not read and understand what they are being asked to accept, the agreement lacks mutual knowledge. A contract like this cannot support the fairness principles of contract law, revealing that courts should be skeptical of enforcing false agreements. 

Moreover, modern courts have come to acknowledge that some contracts are so one-sided that the agreement would be unjust. For example, in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.(1965), a contract allowing the store to repossess all items that a customer had already purchased for missing a single payment was deemed unfair. This reveals that courts can and will intervene when terms are unfair and inadequately understood. Given the complexity of modern contracts, courts should require a multitude of items. Firstly, they should require a clear and common language, especially in consumer and digital contracts. Courts should then ban or provide consequences for including misleading terms and prioritize meaningful and informed consent for both parties. Finally, they should extend the idea that contracts must be beneficial to both parties. These simple steps would ensure that contracts reflect true agreement, rather than forced consent.

In the end, contract law is grounded in the idea of mutual and informed agreement, but in this era of dense digital documents and standardized terms, many contracts fail to meet this standard. Cases such as Carlill, Specht, and Williams reveal that courts value clarity and fairness above all. Strengthening these core principles would protect individuals from unintentionally accepting unfair or confusing obligations. For these reasons, courts should limit enforcement to contracts that are genuinely unclear and unfair–because a legal system that enforces agreements that people cannot understand at all is not protecting the people, or performing its duty. Ensuring clarity is not just a policy, but essential to preserving the integrity of the legal system.