body: As someone who is not a lawyer and needs to sign contracts, I often find the conventional writing style as an instrument to justify the inclusion of clauses that represent a client/provider relationship as if it actually were a master/slave one. This is noticeable in cases where a small company intends to sell its services to a bigger one. In my experience, the language used in these writings acts as a protection for imbalance, as if the "master" were allowed to pretend that an otherwise abusive clause is just regular jargon. At the same time, this accepted language seems to indicate that its author (a lawyer) is more interested in creating the conditions that would favor a conflict, rather than assisting the parties in avoiding them.
  
  
  My question is whether there exists any serious new framework, guidelines or proposal for writing contracts in a way that avoids verbal aggression, underlying instead the spirit of collaboration and commitment that a client/provider agreement should protect. I'm asking this question because I would like to learn of a valid alternative that I could propose to the other party.
  
  
  Finally, note that I'm not asking why things are the way they are. I'm asking where to look for alternatives.
  
  
  
title: Is the usual contract writing style being questioned and a radically new one proposed?