There are historical reasons for these provisions though.
Take, for example, the standard UK limitation of liability cut-and-paste block. (About half a page.)
It's that long because there is case history on each point suggesting that if you don't enumerate each of those the conditions separately then you may get nailed for it. And every time there's a new test case that isn't quite covered, the list gets longer.
The only way to correct that kind of mess is through legislation. And there are so many examples of that kind of crufty-for-a-good-reason language that the patchwork would take years to unravel and have many unexpected consequences (not to mention lots of uncertainty until five hundred years of new case law was established).
There are people working on this kind of thing (for example the new companies act, which makes incorporation documents much simpler and removes some of the 'peppercorn and two groats must be thrice weekly burned over a blue flame' anachronisms) but it takes time.
Take, for example, the standard UK limitation of liability cut-and-paste block. (About half a page.)
It's that long because there is case history on each point suggesting that if you don't enumerate each of those the conditions separately then you may get nailed for it. And every time there's a new test case that isn't quite covered, the list gets longer.
The only way to correct that kind of mess is through legislation. And there are so many examples of that kind of crufty-for-a-good-reason language that the patchwork would take years to unravel and have many unexpected consequences (not to mention lots of uncertainty until five hundred years of new case law was established).
There are people working on this kind of thing (for example the new companies act, which makes incorporation documents much simpler and removes some of the 'peppercorn and two groats must be thrice weekly burned over a blue flame' anachronisms) but it takes time.