And yet if you sign "I have read and understood these documents", how can you claim in court that you didn't?
BTW, I didn't have a lawyer review them. But they are not hard to understand. Probably a century of lawsuits have shaped their contents, and they are shaped by judgments against the authors of them when they are ambiguous or confusing. In fact, they're fairly standardized.
I've never had trouble with mortgage documents, but I have had trouble with car loans, repeatedly. The terms we verbally agreed on were altered in the final document, always significantly in the lender's favor. I always make them fix it, and they'll lie and say those were the terms we agreed, or those terms are their policy, or those changes are immaterial, or they don't have the time to fix the documents, all kinds of crap.
I.e. it's not that the documents are hard to understand, it's that they slip altered terms in them.
BTW, I didn't have a lawyer review them. But they are not hard to understand. Probably a century of lawsuits have shaped their contents, and they are shaped by judgments against the authors of them when they are ambiguous or confusing. In fact, they're fairly standardized.
I've never had trouble with mortgage documents, but I have had trouble with car loans, repeatedly. The terms we verbally agreed on were altered in the final document, always significantly in the lender's favor. I always make them fix it, and they'll lie and say those were the terms we agreed, or those terms are their policy, or those changes are immaterial, or they don't have the time to fix the documents, all kinds of crap.
I.e. it's not that the documents are hard to understand, it's that they slip altered terms in them.