No lawyer would include a plain English version because if you do so you risk ambiguity. There may be differences between the legalese and the plain English version. In that case your entire contract will be ambiguous and you are risking costly litigation to determine the exact meaning of the contract. Even if there are no differences it is guaranteed that if it comes to litigation some other lawyer will argue there are differences.
One of the most important goals of a contract drafter is to avoid all ambiguity and to provide certainty.
So I think the only answer is that if you do not understand a contract, hire your own lawyer to explain it to you. There are a lot of solo practitioners or small firms that will gladly do this for you for a small fee.
> No lawyer would include a plain English version because if you do so you risk ambiguity.
On the contrary, lawyers exist who can draft "plain English" contracts without pointlessly impenetrable copypasta legalese.
We've found that at the end of the day, plain English contracts create fewer problems because both sides understand what's on the page and don't object to it later.
Granted, such lawyers are hard to find.
NOTE: In the UK, in unequal contracts (business vs individual, for example), plain English is a legal requirement[1]:
"According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put the consumer at a disadvantage because he or she is not clear about its meaning - even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply."
No offense, but I do not think you understood what I was talking about. If you read the thread from the initial post we were discussing the possibility of having two versions of the contract a legalistic one and a plain English one written in the same document. As I said, this is unlikely to happen because there is too much danger there will be a real or perceived difference between the two versions which will cause ambiguity down the line.
Of course if it is possible to write the entire contract in plain English only that is to be preferred. But that is not always possible. There are certain things that simply cannot be worded in plain English with sufficient precision.
> No offense, but I do not think you understood what I was talking about. If you read the thread from the initial post we were discussing the possibility of having two versions of the contract a legalistic one and a plain English one written in the same document.
No offense, but that's exactly what I was talking about too. Please see my other comment in this thread, providing a real world example of such an "unlikely" document:
Just to be clear: this is about consumers, and doesn't apply to employment. The unequal part is about the balance that the term in question creates e.g. "if you unplug your PVR you will owe us all lost ad revenue and a reconnection charge £1000". From reading your post I had the impression that it applied to all contracts where the parties have an imbalance in power.
One of the most important goals of a contract drafter is to avoid all ambiguity and to provide certainty.
So I think the only answer is that if you do not understand a contract, hire your own lawyer to explain it to you. There are a lot of solo practitioners or small firms that will gladly do this for you for a small fee.