Can developers read/interpret law clauses?

Personally I think contracts should just be a series of bullet points in clear language so each party knows where they stand but it's a convention that contracts should be in legalese or it's not a proper contract. Lawyers use legalese to increase or decrease ambiguity or to hide unfair contractual terms. It's also gives the impression that only lawyers can draw up contracts, though most of them at this level are just copied and pasted from somewhere else.

You won't get the nuances (and they matter a huge amount!), and you won't be able to write a good contract, but you can usually notice grossly bad clauses.

So: on the one hand, no, you don't understand it enough for many purposes. But then neither can the recruiter. On the other hand, you can notice really bad things.

For example, one common clause that 'offends' a developer might be something starting any work done whilst under their employment remains the IP of the employer.

It's one thing to tell the recruiter something offends you, but another to negotiate an alternative.

For that's what negotiation is. Understanding why the employer requested what they did, and suggesting something that achieves that reasoning but satisfies your concern too.

ii) If you make an Invention in the course of your duties for us, you must disclose it to us at once. That Invention will belong to us. If we obtain a patent for that Invention, however, you may be entitled to compensation for it in accordance with the Patents Act 1977 s.40.

iii) Subject to ii), all Intellectual Property Rights that come into existence during the normal course of your employment or by using materials, tools or knowledge made available through your employment, will belong to us or any of the Group Companies which we nominate. If required to do so (whether during or after the termination of your employment), you must sign any document and do anything necessary to vest ownership in these rights in us as sole beneficial owner. Where ownership does not automatic ally vest by Act of Parliament, you must immediately assign all your interests to us. You irrevocably waive all your rights pursuant to sections 77 to 83 inclusive of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

iv) The provisions of this clause 3 (c) shall remain in full force and effect following any termination of this agreement for any reason, whether such termination is lawful or not.

Any thoughts?

And neither are you (the recruiter) and this bothers me.

If your working with a recruiter who isn't working for the company, your making extra work for them. But at the end of the day YOU are their ticket to a paycheck. Don't like the contract, simply say "this changes or I walk", they will work their butt off to be accommodating.

My favorite thing to say to recruiters when it is about money is this: "If you want me to take this job go back and get me another 10k, it isn't a lot of money on your bottom line, hell it is probably only a dinner out, but it is going to make me happy and take the job." Watch how quickly a final offer changes!

I agree with the comments below that you should read any contract that applies to you. Chances are that you'll understand it and this is extremely important before signing.

With that said, lawyers spend years learning how to draft and interpret contracts and I thin it's simplistic to say that it's similar to a BDD spec. There's a lot more going on under the hood.

Either way, never accept blindly and you're within your rights to seek a plain-English clarification.

Can developers read/interpret legal clauses? Yes and no. I good developer should have the analytical skills to do a much better than average job spotting issues in the plain language of a contract.

What a lawyer can add, if they have experience, is a familiarity with these types of clauses, what is and is not standard, the background law which helps in terms of what is and is not enforceable, and an understanding of how courts interpret these types of clauses.

And, of course, a lawyer can help in terms of revising the terms of an agreement or negotiating.

But, from what I see here, you have picked up on some serious issues with this agreement and you don't need a lawyer to go back to the recruiter or employer and explain your concerns. Maybe they will propose alternative language. If not, that's probably when you would want to either consider a lawyer or just walk.

What is written is only one leg of the tripod. Another leg of the tripod is knowing the legal precedents, and you won't get those just by reading the laws or the contracts -- and even if you pass the bar exam, you probably won't learn those outside of going to law school. The third leg of the tripod is knowing which judge(s) you are dealing with, and how they are likely to rule, based on what is before them -- and even law school can't really help prepare you for this problem.

And all of that assumes everyone is operating in the same legal regime, in the same jurisdiction. The legal systems can be radically different in other places, such that the lawyers in that area don't even think the same way. For example, in French law, there is no Federal system. So, any contract that is written with language referring to federal law may be null and void in France -- just ask Chubb and their multimillion dollar case that went all the way up to the French Supreme Court.

So, as a programmer, sure -- you can read the contract, and you may even be able to do a better job of it than most. But do you know all the legal precedents in your jurisdiction? Do you know all the respective judges who might see your case and how they would rule?

If it's a standard contract with a big company, you may just have to bite the bullet -- or decide you don't want to work under those rules.

Either way, a big company probably isn't going to make any changes for you, because this is their standard contract that they give everyone, and they never make any changes for anyone.

So, how badly do you want this job? How much of a stink are you willing to raise to try to get changes made to the contract, before you decide it's not worth it?

Even if you are a lawyer, if you are a client in a case, you don't want to represent yourself. You can't really be properly impartial when it comes to what you want, and so you would be the moron who would be retaining a fool as his representation.