In the post before this one (here), I list nine bad reasons (and three good reasons) for not using Adams Contracts templates. But the best reason for not using our templates would be that they exhibit defects of concept or systemic defects of execution. How likely is it you'd be able to establish that?
Defects of Concept?
I was bewildered to have a commentator say to me, a couple of years ago, that the concept of Adams Contracts was flawed—that contract templates are for applying decisions, not for making them. What a lack of imagination! That's like saying, upon seeing the earliest horseless carriages, "Carriages are intended to be drawn only by horses!"
If you don't use a highly customizable template to make decisions regarding what the deal should look like, you'd have to arrive at those decisions in some other way. You'd have only two drastically inferior options: improvising, or copy-and-pasting.
The only other ostensible conceptual defect I can think of is that old favorite, "Too many questions!" I deal with that in this blog post. The TL;DR version: Stop moaning and do your job!
Systemic Defects of Execution?
Our templates have exhibited defects. They contain masses of coding; they reflect work carried out over years; and I'm a dilettante. As a result, I've committed plenty of crimes against clean document automation. Thanks to our document-automation consultant and thanks to users (particularly the relentless Kevin Toll), I've gradually eliminated glitches. Doubtless more remain to be found.
But that's part of document automation: you make mistakes, you fix them once, and they remain fixed. It's not a big deal. That's why in this post I refer to systemic defects. What might those systemic defects be?
First, there are defects in what you say in a contract—the substance. Relying on someone else's contract substance requires a leap of faith; if it's not reliable, that leap might be a leap into the void.
I suggest you can rely on what's in our templates. Regarding what's in my area of expertise, my track record shows I'm dogged in analyizing issues and coming up with provisions that address those issues more effectively than is the case in mainstream contract drafting. See for example my writings on boilerplate, listed in this blog post. If a topic is outside my area of expertise, I enlist specialists and work with them; see this blog post about that.
Bear in mind that I don't promise perfection in contract substance. Instead, I say that what Adams Contracts offers will be better. And necessarily, no template can include every option you might want, although I already have a list of options to add at some point.
Next, there are defects in how you say whatever you want to say in a contract. I guarantee that a contract you create using an Adams Contract template will be clear and concise. Again, that doesn't mean it will be perfect—the inkstained-wretch version of me can't be counted on to have complete recall of everything that's in A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting. But it will be way better than what's on offer in mainstream contract drafting.
The Upshot
So it's unlikely anyone would be able to point to significant problems with Adams Contracts templates. So far, no one has attempted to do so. That's the story of my life: it's rare for anyone to take me on in the marketplace of ideas. I discuss that in this 2020 blog post. I offer four reasons, with this one looming over the others:
Those who are invested in a dysfunctional system have nothing to gain from challenging it and are temperamentally ill-equipped to do so . If you’re a cog—big or small—in the transactional copy-and-paste machine, it’s unlikely you’ll be interested in scrutinizing it too closely. If you’re part of a herd, you’ll likely be willing to join them in going over the cliff.
I suspect that applies to critiquing Adams Contract templates. On the other hand, we're starting to see users describe their positive experience with Adams Contracts. See this LinkedIn post by Matt Boyd.
(The photo accompanying this post is covered by a Creative Commons license and is available here.)
