Generating Clarification Questions for Disambiguating Contracts

Enterprises frequently enter into commercial contracts that can serve as vital sources of project-specific requirements. Contractual clauses are obligatory, and the requirements derived from contracts can detail the downstream implementation activities that non-legal stakeholders, including requirement analysts, engineers, and delivery personnel, need to conduct. However, comprehending contracts is cognitively demanding and error-prone for such stakeholders due to the extensive use of Legalese and the inherent complexity of contract language. Furthermore, contracts often contain ambiguously worded clauses to ensure comprehensive coverage. In contrast, non-legal stakeholders require a detailed and unambiguous comprehension of contractual clauses to craft actionable requirements. In this work, we introduce a novel legal NLP task that involves generating clarification questions for contracts. These questions aim to identify contract ambiguities on a document level, thereby assisting non-legal stakeholders in obtaining the necessary details for eliciting requirements. This task is challenged by three core issues: (1) data availability, (2) the length and unstructured nature of contracts, and (3) the complexity of legal text. To address these issues, we propose ConRAP, a retrieval-augmented prompting framework for generating clarification questions to disambiguate contractual text. Experiments conducted on contracts sourced from the publicly available CUAD dataset show that ConRAP with ChatGPT can detect ambiguities with an F2 score of 0.87. 70% of the generated clarification questions are deemed useful by human evaluators.

Towards Mitigating Perceived Unfairness in Contracts from a Non-Legal Stakeholder's Perspective

Commercial contracts are known to be a valuable source for deriving project-specific requirements. However, contract negotiations mainly occur among the legal counsel of the parties involved. The participation of non-legal stakeholders, including requirement analysts, engineers, and solution architects, whose primary responsibility lies in ensuring the seamless implementation of contractual terms, is often indirect and inadequate. Consequently, a significant number of sentences in contractual clauses, though legally accurate, can appear unfair from an implementation perspective to non-legal stakeholders. This perception poses a problem since requirements indicated in the clauses are obligatory and can involve punitive measures and penalties if not implemented as committed in the contract. Therefore, the identification of potentially unfair clauses in contracts becomes crucial. In this work, we conduct an empirical study to analyze the perspectives of different stakeholders regarding contractual fairness. We then investigate the ability of Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) to identify unfairness in contractual sentences by comparing chain of thought prompting and semi-supervised fine-tuning approaches. Using BERT-based fine-tuning, we achieved an accuracy of 84% on a dataset consisting of proprietary contracts. It outperformed chain of thought prompting using Vicuna-13B by a margin of 9%.