Do you want a tried and tested contract?
Really?
Tried before the courts because it wasn’t clear enough? Tested by years of use and abuse [read Ken Adams’ view on tested language in contracts]?
One of those contracts which surveys have held stoke mistrust? Or one of the ones which the parties do not read, understand or use and which end in dispute?
A construction consultant offered this service:
We will [help you] execute a tried and tested contract on your behalf to make sure it is completed correctly.
I have given the author the benefit of the doubt by assuming the ‘it’ reference is to the contract being completed correctly, rather than the project – which no contract can possibly guarantee.
What do clients really want?
Clients prefer simple language.
Clients want user-friendly formats.
Clients need certainty of cost, process, and outcome.
Clients want to avoid unwelcome surprises.
What should you do?
If your contracts are tried and tested contracts but are neither in simple language nor a user-friendly format, if they create uncertainty for clients or unwelcome surprises, then they do not meet client needs.
Ditch them and go for 500 words instead!
