It’s an interesting debate, because the reason the law is so complex in its language is they try and make it watertight in meaning. And we still get lots of legal argument about meanings. Making it simpler language may actually have the impact of meaning you get MORE lawyers (or lawyer types) who win on their ability to turn the simple language one way or the other. I totally agree that you need the laws to have a simple translation, but sometimes you need the words to have more limited definition

Also, on your explanation of sale of goods act, you missed the bit that goes that even of the seller has given you the goods – or the post office or courier has it – it’s still not yours until you have paid for it, or done what you said you do. So if you have not completed the hulu-hoop dance of awesomeness with the hula-hoop the seller gave you on that condition, the hula-hoop is still owned by the seller. In this case, possession is not none-tenths of the law 🙂