The article discusses how parties design contracts in a world where litigation is costly. It explores the tradeoff between using specific terms (rules) or vague terms (standards) in contracts. The researchers suggest that using a mix of both types of provisions can lead to more cost-effective contracting. By varying procedural rules in contracts, parties can reduce back-end costs and improve the efficiency of litigation. The study shows that even though vague terms are often criticized, they are commonly used in commercial contracts for good reason. The key takeaway is that considering the anticipated path of litigation is important in designing contracts.