The contract is a Frankenstein monster

One popular contract DIY approach is to copy and paste contract clauses from similar contracts you find through a Google search thinking that if they are in other contracts, they must be ok to use. The result is a document which may seem to be a pretty solid contract to a non-lawyer but which creates existential pain for any decent lawyer. These documents are pretty easy to spot. Common giveaways include inconsistent terminology, different fonts and text formatting and references to other countries. Subtler indications include inappropriate terminology (for example, “libel” instead of “defamation”).

There are two problems with this approach. The first is that many of the contracts you find online are, themselves, rubbish. Many lawyers working in large companies still produce terrible documents and they rely on their status within the company to lend credibility to their work. The second problem is that most of the contracts you find online are designed (yes, you can use the word “design” in the context of a contract) for a specific set of requirements which may be very different to yours. They are also written for particular legal systems and frameworks. I often see hacked privacy policies referencing a minimum user age of 13 years. That is not relevant to South African law where a person is a child until she turns 18.