What does one do when one cannot understand, or is not privy to, instructions? Information that, in certain cases, can be crucial, even life-threatening. Is a legal process the only way out?

Two recent judgements in the USA have made history. The courts’ findings in both these cases assume significance, especially given the pedantic, obfuscatory and convoluted language that we are subjected to in our country. Let us discuss one of these orders. We are bombarded with a torrent of information every day which is not always possible to comprehend or digest. It appears on product packaging, insurance forms, important documents (like guarantees, warrantees and contracts) and even on medicine and food packaging.

Ever tried reading everything printed on that shiny, corrugated foil? Ever wondered why professionals write the way they do? Lawyers write in legalese; chartered accountants write in a style that only the income-tax officer understands. Doctors consider all communications secret, save that which the compounder or the pharmacist can read. What is a lay person like me supposed to do? Grin and bear it and hope for the best?

What manufacturers forget is that judges too use products available in the market. And, given a chance, they will hit back. Not only for themselves, but for the public at large. A Chicago judge was asked to decide on the clarity of the language in a money demand letter. One Mr Bartlett had a credit card. The credit card company wanted him to pay up. The company’s lawyer, a Mr Heibl, obviously well-versed in prose and verse, sent Mr Bartlett a letter demanding payment.

Mr Bartlett did not pay. And pray, why, may we ask? Mr Bartlett said he could not understand the contents of the letter. It was Greek and Latin to him. So now what?

You be the judge.

The company sued for payment. It won the first round in a trial court. Mr Bartlett, obviously, understood that court’s order in the language it was written and, therefore, appealed. The matter went to, if I may say so, a very sensible judge. He opined, “But the courts, our own included, have held, plausibly enough, that it is implicit that the debt collector may not defeat the statute’s purpose by making the required disclosures in a form or within a context in which they are unlikely to be understood by unsophisticated debtors who are the particular objects of the statute’s solicitude.” UNLIKELY TO BE UNDERSTOOD—the bon mots!

There is, in law, a very funny term. A reasonable man**. In my 73 years, I have found only one such person. Myself. I am sure most readers will say the same thing about themselves. Why does law refer to a ‘reasonable man’ and not one with ‘common sense’? Maybe because common sense is, in fact, very uncommon. Therefore, the law presumes that ‘a reasonable man’ is an average person. He is the standard that judges weigh evidence for or against.

In the matter on hand, the judge found the demand letter difficult to be understood by a layman. Of course, he did not let Mr Bartlett off the hook, but remanded the matter to the trial court. He also wrote a sample letter, in his judgement, in plain English. It told Mr Bartlett that he owed money and had so many days to pay. We reproduce it here for its lucidity.

Bapoo Malcolm is a practising lawyer in Mumbai. Please email your comments to [email protected]