Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: LawPatch – JQuery for Law Using Git

blog.codepact.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–9 of 9 posts

Re: Show HN: LawPatch – JQuery for Law Using Git

#3

Post by russnewcomer »

I like this idea in general, as a non-lawyer who tries to read things I'm signing, but I wonder if foot-noting or other in-document attribution system is a better answer? I can see struggles where a contract written with LawPatch is consulted in 10-15 years, and there are dead links or other similar technical problems. I don't see where LawPatch addresses that, unless I'm missing something?

Re: Show HN: LawPatch – JQuery for Law Using Git

#4

Post by pjbrow »

russnewcomer wrote: post #3

I like this idea in general, as a non-lawyer who tries to read things I'm signing, but I wonder if foot-noting or other in-document attribution system is a better answer? I can see struggles where a contract written with LawPatch is consulted in 10-15 years, and there are dead links or other similar technical problems. I don't see where LawPatch addresses that, unless I'm missing something?

Agree that foot / end noting is another good way to do it - the important thing is the drafting technique rather than the way it's implemented.

We're using Github permalinks to cover the linking issue for now, but we're discussing more permanent options. Would be interested to hear what other ways people think would work.

There's also the option for users to download the repos and use the commit hash in the document proper for reference.

Re: Show HN: LawPatch – JQuery for Law Using Git

#5

Post by ckluis »

russnewcomer wrote: post #3

I like this idea in general, as a non-lawyer who tries to read things I'm signing, but I wonder if foot-noting or other in-document attribution system is a better answer? I can see struggles where a contract written with LawPatch is consulted in 10-15 years, and there are dead links or other similar technical problems. I don't see where LawPatch addresses that, unless I'm missing something?

It feels like the actual contract could be split into two columns for each item (intent & legalese) which would serve the same benefit without requiring looking up external terms.

Re: Show HN: LawPatch – JQuery for Law Using Git

#6

Post by pjbrow »

Hi everyone, I'm a contributor to LawPatch. We started this project because we wanted legal positions that we could call like functions (as if we were coding).

Our aim is to make legal language simple without introducing ambiguity or extra risk.

We think even the most technical legal agreements could look like term sheets using this drafting method. A spectrum of standardised positions also stops lawyers from constantly replicating work.

This is is an open source project by lawyers who are also developers - we'd love to hear from anyone who's got ideas for improvements or would like to contribute language for other areas.

We have patches drafted for the United States, UK and Australia. Happy to hear from people in other countries too! Creating this extra level of abstraction is also an opportunity to standardize documents across jurisdictions.

Re: Show HN: LawPatch – JQuery for Law Using Git

#7

Post by pjbrow »

brudgers wrote: post #2

Clear wording and incorporation by reference is very similar to the way the details of construction contracts and building regulations work in the United States. Home page of LawPatch: http://lawpatch.org/

Yep - that's how the commercial technical detail is often dealt with. We're stretching (and slightly rejigging) the same concept to legally substantive text.
Post reply on HN