> 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:

http://bagcheck.com/terms

> But that is not always possible. There are certain things that simply cannot be worded in plain English with sufficient precision.

That is false.