BestOfBid.com - Should the federal government provide a lawyer to every citizen to explain every contract people sign?

Should the federal government provide a lawyer to every citizen to explain every contract people sign?

No one would EVER have the burden of taking it upon themselves to read and understand a contract. They could just call the government, and a lawyer is sent out to read and explain mortgages, auto-loans, credit card agreements, etc in simple, child like terms everyone can understand.

Public Comments

In Soviet Russia, contract sign you!
No. whatever happened to caveat emptor? Absent fraud, of course.
Absolutley not
No, it would be easier for them to just change the law that if you do sign one and then don't like it you can just tell the other party to go jump in a lake. Then the libs would be really happy.
no it is very straight forward to read contracts
no
No, at first we'll send free government doctors to treat every illness, if it works, then it's the turn of free universal legal advice.
I think they should eliminate contracts all together & just start giving me everything I'm entitled to such as a house, car, I'd also like a private jet, I'll just send the government a list of what I think is rightfully mine. As a woman and a minority, I'm extra-entitled to it.
that'll never happen. Way too much manpower needed. Never put your name on something you dont understand. Most of the time when contracts are so hard to comprehend, it's because there's a flaw, a catch.
according to the way you think.....you know....a one party rule ...yes...to me...no
Do you have any idea how much that would cost?
dont liberal schools teach that
Your missing the point, these people don't want to know what was in the contract to begin. If they knew they couldn't be a victim
A more practical solution would be to make contracts reader-friendly without legal mumbo jumbo, or maybe require footnotes that translate the legal mumbo jumbo into wording that one who is not a lawyer can understand. Or how about a national hotline funded by the cc companies for legal advice lol. That way they'll be more deligent with their wording so their lines don't get flooded!
Just make obvious unfair contract illegal or unenforceable. There is no need to explain everything.
No and please do NOT give liberals this idea right now. As much as they have screwed with the other amendments, they could start messing with the 6th. Let's start with Congress reading bills before they sign them, eh?
considering lawyers draft contracts to make them intentionally unintelligible - yes and the government does exactly that - in the form of fair practice laws - the gov't has lawyers that protect citizens' rights from businesses should businesses provide detailed contracts about every product they sell? buy a quarter pounder with cheese and before you purchase it you have to sign a contract stating you've been shown the Discovery Channel show on rainforest depletion, shown a documentary on cow slaughter, shown the movie "Super Size Me" and have signed docs waiving your rights to healthcare related to ones' dietary choices, etc
How about this, instead of the govt providing it, the title companies and lenders provide one at each signing... That way the douche in a suit trying to pull one over on you (and it happens more than anyone cares to admit) doesn't stand a chance. I know this because I am a douche in a suit. I don't intentionally try to trick people but some people never ask certain questions.
With the number of people refusing to take responsibility for anything I'm sure it would just be a matter of time before the lawyers themselves were being sued for not using simple enough terms. The sad sorry truth is that some people are simply too stupid to understand anything more complicated than a pay up front cash and carry system. I bet if you randomly asked a group of people what 10% of 100 is half would get it wrong. (By the way, it's 10, if you're still trying to figure it out)
I wouldn't want to have to pay more taxes for the federal government to start the program, but I think a simple law course for all students or a free website run by law professors would be a superb idea.
The government can not rule on any contract that does not involve Gold or Silver as payment. since the dollar is no longer backed by gold, the government is powerless on contracts involving dollars.
Obviously the American public is too stupid to use a credit card, buy an American car, purchase a mortgage they can afford, give to charity, plan for their own retirement, buy their own health care, decide what foods are healthy to eat, or anything else at all. Therefore, the only solution (and the inevitable destination of our current path) is for the government to take 100% control of your life. If people are allowed to make their own decisions, then some people will make bad decisions and that will result in inequality. This is unfair, so the government will make all decisions for you, that way all people are exactly the same.
Read the contracts. Their not that complicated. Or to you assume we are all idiots?
I forget exactly what it is called...I think "The Truth in Lending Act." This was needed because businesses were not being up front about the terms of loans. Loan contracts have become so complicated that the average person does not understand what they are signing. Well, maybe not the "average" person...but plenty of people. Couple that with unsavory lenders who sort of on they sly add comments like, "but that will never happen" then you have a recipe for potential financial disaster for the borrower. I remember once taking out a loan which had a "balloon payment" clause....which meant the load could be sold by my bank to another holder, in which case they could demand the entire loan be paid off at once. It was so long ago I forget exactly why we agreed to those terms, but we did (and later refinanced with a better interest rate and better terms). Anyway....I specifically remember the loan officer explaining the "balloon payment" and saying, "but that never happens." We accepted the loan knowing we couldn't trust that added little statement but we were nonetheless bothered by the fact that he said it in the first place. Other people accepting that loan may have bought into that statement and given the fact that loans are bought and sold pretty regularly a "balloon payment" call-in would be very possible. I also worked with a woman who was getting in way over her head with a home mortgage when buying her first home. She had met with a financial councelor (with the lending bank) before she signed the loan. I warned her that she was taking on too much, but as a co-worker I had to hold back. She did okay for a while but then began to struggle for about a year until she finally lost her home through a foreclosure. When I was very young, I was once convinced by a car salesperson that I could afford the payments on a particular car she was trying to sell me. I WANTED that car bad so I was easily convinced. Sure, it was my place to know what I could afford, I know. But the point I'm trying to make with all this is that people trying to sell and lend should either give HONEST advice or NO advice. In fact, banks used to be much more ethical with loaning when they routinely held on to their own loans; they knew if someone couldn't afford the debt ratio they would not get their payments. Nowadays, they sell the loans and don't care about the end result. This affects the buyer of that loan as well as the borrower, who didn't have the financial wherewithall to know he couldn't afford the load in the first place. No, the federal governement should not provide lawyers. But they should find a way to protect the consumer of loans in the same way they protect the consumer in other matters. And considering what has happened to the banking and housing industry without such regulation, it truly is a matter of national security; an economically weak nation is a volitile nation.
As an attorney, I feel that EVERY document -- from wills and contracts to credit card receipts and coat check slips -- should be reviewed by an attorney prior to signing. There should be an attorney at every coat check and grocery store checkout. Of course, the attorney could not ethically represent each party to the transaction. There would need to be an additional attorney present to represent the interests of the other party to the deal. Given the burden this would place upon the consumer, I think it would be both fair and logical for the federal government to pay the attorneys fees for review of each transaction.