48 Accessibility and intelligibility

In the preparation of the DCFR every attempt was made to achieve not only a clear and coherent structure, but also a plain and clear wording. Whether the model rules and definitions are seen as a tool for better lawmaking or as the possible basis for one or more optional instruments it is important that they should be fit for their purpose. The terminology should be precise and should be used consistently. The word ‘contract’ for example should be used in one sense, not three or more. The terminology should be as suitable as possible for use across a large number of translations. It should therefore try to avoid legalese and technicalities drawn from any one legal system. An attempt has been made to find, wherever possible, descriptive language which can be readily translated without carrying unwanted baggage with it. It is for this reason that words like ‘rescission’, ‘tort’ and ‘delict’ have been avoided. The concepts used should be capable of fitting together coherently in model rules, whatever the content of those model rules. The text should be well-organised, accessible and readable. Being designed for the Europe of the 21st century, it should be expressed in gender neutral terms. It should be as simple as is consistent with the need to convey accurately the intended meaning. It should not contain irrational, redundant, or conflicting provisions. Whether the DCFR achieves these aims is for others to judge. Certainly, considerable efforts were made to try to achieve them.