tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post3031566394961035797..comments2024-03-18T17:01:07.165-07:00Comments on The Provocateur: Regulating "Fine Print"mike volpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-12818467195869304312009-07-01T08:43:19.636-07:002009-07-01T08:43:19.636-07:00There's a lot of excellent points in that comm...There's a lot of excellent points in that comment. I agree entirely. I will point out that one of the main reasons that people don't read contracts is because they are long, wordy, and tedious. That's because they are responding to regulations.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-63112827739387560762009-07-01T06:49:07.378-07:002009-07-01T06:49:07.378-07:00As a contract law professor, I live in the world o...As a contract law professor, I live in the world of fine print. The reality is that the language used doesn't matter because consumers never read the contracts anyway. I anticipate that this new agency will create standard form contracts that must be used by the industry. <br /><br />There are several problems with that approach. First, agencies are always subject to capture by the regulated entities. Thus, the standard mandatory contracts will more closely resemble an industry wish-list than a consumer wish-list over time. <br /><br />Second, a significant body of research suggests that businesses use standard form contracts to control their costs, occasionally (but not unless they have to because of competition) passing some of the savings on to consumers. Government mandated standard forms remove all flexibility from the system and prevent business from competing through their standard terms. This in turn reduces flexibility and innovation by business in producing new products.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com