Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 consumer contracts and consumer notices are required to be expressed in plain and intelligible language. This is a difficult concept to capture. Determining whether a contract is expressed in plain and intelligible language involves resource-intensive work by regulators and difficult adjudications by courts. This paper explores whether reading scores present a viable alternative. Can a simple computer program tell a consumer, a business, a regulator or the court that a particular contract is not expressed in plain and intelligible language? The paper begins by exploring the concept and role of plain and intelligible language in the Consumer Rights Act, before considering the ways that reading scores have developed and been used in legal contexts. We then report on the findings of an experimental examination of insurance contracts using a basket of reading scores, using our findings to draw conclusions about the utility of reading scores in determining whether a contract is expressed in plain and intelligible language. We find that reading scores can play a role in such determinations, but that further work is needed to provide appropriate tools for business, regulators and courts to use in assessing plain and intelligible language.

In this paper, we make a fundamental distinction between literacy attainment scores and the actual process of learning to read, and examine these two aspects of reading in atypical development. Reading skills in a group of children and adults with the genetic disorder Williams syndrome (WS) were compared to a group of typically developing children matched for reading age and receptive vocabulary scores. Study 1 focused on the product of reading and explored the relationship between reading, general cognition, and phonological skills. Phonological skills were shown to be related to individual differences in reading attainment in both groups, although more weakly in the WS group. Experiment 2 examined the process of learning to read. The two groups were taught to associate abbreviated spellings (cues) with spoken words. The cues differed in their phonetic closeness to the target words, whereas the target words differed on the semantic variable of imageability. Compared to controls, the WS group showed slower learning, less sensitivity to the phonetic quality of the cue, and reduced influence from the imageability of words. The results support the hypothesis that although reading levels in WS depend on phonological skills, the full development of their reading is compromised by weak semantics. The studies highlight the importance in atypical populations of examining both reading levels and the actual process of learning to read.