When your classmates threaten you with felony charges
I don&#x27;t understand why in both contracts and legal communication (particularly threatening one), there is little to no consequence for the writing party to get things right.<p>I&#x27;ve seen examples of an employee contract, with things like &quot;if any piece of this contract is invalid it doesn&#x27;t invalidate the rest of the contract&quot;. The employer is basically trying to enforce their rules (reasonable), but they have no negative consequences if what they write is not allowed. At most a court deems that piece invalid, but that&#x27;s it. The onus is on the reader to know (which tends to be a much weaker party).<p>Same here. Why can a company send a threatening letter (&quot;you&#x27;ll go 20 years to federal prison for this!!&quot;), when it&#x27;s clearly false? Shouldn&#x27;t there be an onus on the writer to ensure that what they write is reasonable? And if it&#x27;s absurdly and provably wrong, shouldn&#x27;t there be some negative consequences more than &quot;oh, nevermind&quot;?