Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

Sure. I've read an agreement (by a tier-1 ISP) which was a pure pleasure to read.

Right! So 'legalese' could be generated from simpler diagrams which make edge cases much more evident.

I've always thought that statements of law are a centuries-long struggle to get to a level of expression that we achieve in computer programs.

We also have unit testing and versioning, plus a lot of other relevant processes.

I'd add overcomplication.

At least in the UK (I moved here btw.). I signed two rental agreements, 3 employment contracts and refused one employment contract on the basis of poor content. Each legal text were 40+ pages, taking very long to process not just beacuse of the sheer size but the obscure phrasing and errors as well. Tiny aspects were added to each in obscure language that a common person is supposed to process and give full consent with legal consequences. With the rental agreements I had no choice but to sing as is despite repeated chapters and typos changing the meaning, also internal discrepancies. I had to live somewhere and there was not much choice, not in the given time. But the refused employment contract was so poor to the level of pathetic, that I had to refuse. Chapters with common language altered uncomprehensible old english legal text, dead references, same text repeated 3(!) times in different places and two kind of paragraphs repeated in 2 locations. It also contained detailed rules about checking tyre pressure on own car when being out on company business and the rules of chewing gum in the office and the consequences of causing damage by the improperly disposed bubble gum. Accepting all in full with the consequence of disciplinary proceedings. Their reasoning addding so many tiny details was that the lawyer suggested adding anything, just in case. Yet, as there are millions of such small details possible in life it was hopefully incomplete still, failing to regulate other very possible scenarios.

I am convinced that this urge to include as much as possible led to the very state of poor and erronous content. As the contract grew and changed throughout the years dead paragraph references, content altering typos, rushly wrote nonsense sentences, inconsistency and errors grew. Led to me being the first (which I am very very surprised about) refusing to sign after about 2 weeks of intense deliberation (plus some days of processing and a full day intense work I had on a 40+ item list about problems and errors above my persoanal wishes). Many of the suggestions went into the contract but others were not possible to change without paying the lawyer and some weeks of work and of course they did not want to deviate too much from the common content, accepting the new contract with everyoen else, so it became hopeless to get to agreement eventually.

If the contract was ca. 3-6 pages max, like in my previous positions from elsewhere in Europe, then it was not in this bad state as it was easier to maintain and also comprehend (like my rental agreement in Sweden being one page premade to standard, purchased in a bookshop). Less was more in this case.

My current contract is also 30+ pages, with an international company but with individual contracts for the various locations, naturally. Our new HR head in the continental Europe is amazed how big the UK contract is compared to the one used in her country. Also agreeing pure details here and there, prepared by a local solicitor hired. We had to have long discussions about the content similar to the case with the refused one, but with less errors and accepting some remaining issues tentatively until the text is altered later during the employment (with the involvement of lawyers).

The contracts I meet here are huge, filled with obsure text difficult to understand for the common people mandated to accept its content in full, also buggy as the consequence of the shear size. I feel the whole purpose is lost this way. Especially when those supposed to comply with each and every details (there is a clause saying violating any clause could allow summary dismissal) cannot understand everything, due to unclear text or buggy content. Additionally the process is long, laborous, and at the same time rushed through in a competitive situation.

I can safely say that I am pretty unhappy about the contractual procedures around me and cannot take those seriously, despite the legal consequences being very real.

also school system does not teach you anything about criminal law or your rights, but teaches you poetry and differential equasions.

That's the exact scenario for the PA measure - judges had a mandatory retirement age of 70 and the measure was to set that age at 75. People didn't know that there was already a limit. The original wording provided that info and it failed. Then they rewrote it like this just to get it to pass (I think they also took it to court, where an interesting party, a judge, ruled on the wording).