I'm delving into the operating details of the Nota Bene system which we now have installed in the Rathaus, in preparation for converting our deed registration process to its use. The system underlies a lot of our consideration about NBurg as a legal and financial services center. Here are a couple of logistical issues which bear keeping in mind.
1) The contract can be no more than about 4000 characters, probably because it has to fit in an email. As the instructions note, this translates to about 80 lines or 650 words. For reference sake, the standard NBurg deed is 82 lines, although less than 650 words.
It is certainly good advice that legal documents be clear and concise. But clear and concise in legal terms is often considerably wordier than normal speech, in any language. We have modeled much of our legal structure considerations, for good reason, after RL systems for doing things. This constraint on the length of documents capable of being notarized may require us to "re-invent" even some of those RL conventions which we might hardly give a nod to.
Here's an example. The typical contract (in my experience) is structured something like this. It starts with a basic statement of purpose and definitions of who the participant parties are. Usually no more than the first page. Then, usually, there is at most a page or two of the substance of the agreement... details, numbers, who does what. This is always then followed by what is affectionately called "boilerplate"; standard "framework" language which sets the context of the whole agreement; often repeated verbatim from one contract to the next.
Because of the need for short notarizable documents, and also, because it just might be a good idea in general, there might be developed standard sets of legal "context" documents which can be referenced in an actual contract, rather than repeated verbatim. The intro section could be simplified to a length-constrained statement of purpose, and standard definitions of participants. The boilerplate could be standardized into a few modular documents, which might include the standardized definitions, and then simply referenced in an actual contract, rather than repeated. The adherance to the identified modular document(s) could be among the certifications made by the signers in the actual contract.
As I proofread this, it seems a bit confusing. But, ultimately, this might be a great step towards simplifying contracts, such that really anyone can understand what they're agreeing to.
2) At risk of repeating what everyone knows, the process of notarizing a document goes like this.
a) All signers must gather together at the machine.
b) One person drops the prepared notecard on the machine.
c) Each signer touches the machine.
d) The machine hands out a copy of the document to each signer, along with a Dialog Box.
e) Each signer reviews the document they are given by the machine, because this is the ACTUAL document they are agreeing to.
f) Each signer clicks the appropriate choice in the Dialog Box, indicating their assent to the agreement, in effect, signing it. The copy they are given before their assent they can discard.
g) The machine then proceeds to churn out the notarized object, containing the document.
For very good reasons, there is a timeout imposed on each step of this process: 2 minutes. If, for any reason, there is no action during any 2 minute interval, the entire transaction is cancelled.
There is one step in the process where the 2 minute timeout might be a problem. That step is "e)".
Here's a scenario. A new resident wishes to buy land in NBurg. Rudeen prepares a deed and sends them a copy for review. Then, they meet at the Rathaus to conclude the deal. Rudeen places a copy of the deed on the notary. The notary hands to the new resident a copy of that document.....
How does the new resident know that this is the same document? Only by reading it closely to make sure that this is the same as what they looked at before. If there are a lot of details... numbers and such... crammed into the agreement, the new resident may wish to take some time to go over carefully what they are agreeing to. 2 minutes... even... 2 days... may not be enough time.
I can think of one solution to this problem, a tool conveniently available at the notary station which enable the signers to quickly compare the document given to them by the machine with a document external to the process. That might be a solution.
I think this is important problem that must be addressed. Sophisticated business people may be proud of the fact that they can scan a document quickly and notice immediately any problems. An ordinary person can not necessarily be assumed to have that skill, and having a stopwatch running prior to assent may be an inappropriate condition.
Sudane