Enforceability of Visuals in Contracts: Myth or Reality?

When companies like Airbus and Shell embrace visuals in contracts, they’re not experimenting for fun, they’re solving real problems of clarity, efficiency, and trust.Businesses and consumers crave clarity. Yet many lawyers remain skeptical. The hesitation usually stems from two fears:

1. Risk aversion: A preference for the comfort of precedent over innovation.

2. Enforceability concerns: The worry that courts won’t take visuals seriously.

Let’s set the record straight: there is no rule in contract law that prohibits visuals. In fact, the evidence shows courts already interpret them confidently.

Courts have long been comfortable interpreting visuals. And research suggests visual contracts may even increase enforceability, because they make terms transparent and obvious. In fact, using visuals in a contract visually forces lawyers themselves to clarify meaning.

When you need to sketch a clause as a flow, or explain a term to a designer, you catch ambiguities faster. That alone reduces risk. 

⚖️ Visuals Are Already Part of Legal Practice

Even if visuals rarely make it into the “official” body of a contract, lawyers already use them constantly throughout the contracting process. Think about the tools we reach for when explaining complex deals to clients or counterparties: PowerPoint slides with diagrams during negotiations, internal one-pagers summarizing risk allocation for business stakeholders, or timelines and flowcharts that outline milestones and responsibilities. These are all visual aids, just sitting “outside” the contract.

In fact, many contracts already include visuals in appendices and exhibits. Construction agreements often attach blueprints or engineering drawings. Real estate contracts come with maps and site plans. Franchise agreements may include brand style guides or process diagrams. These aren’t considered optional, they’re integral to the contract. If the wrong version of a blueprint or site plan is attached, it can trigger disputes worth millions. In other words, visuals are already enforceable where they form part of the bargain.

The irony is that lawyers tend to treat visuals as “safe” only when they are tucked into appendices, even though those very visuals often drive the actual performance of the contract. A construction company won’t rely on a clause to know how to build a wall, they’ll look at the attached drawing. A tenant won’t infer the boundaries of a lease from a definition clause, they’ll look at the map. The substance of the deal is often far more visual than the words themselves.

What’s changing now is the recognition that visuals can also play a valuable role inside the text of contracts, not just in appendices. Used carefully, they can clarify formulas, illustrate processes, and reduce ambiguity in ways that words alone often fail to achieve. The paradox? We trust visuals everywhere except the signed document. But nothing in contract law requires us to keep contracts text-only. As Jay Mitchell (2018) notes, contract law is about whether there is mutual intent, not whether the document looks a certain way.

Courts Already Interpret Visuals

UK: Visuals as Evidence of Intention

Two UK decisions provide particularly strong signals that visuals are not only enforceable, but can sometimes carry more interpretive weight than dense blocks of legal text.

In [2014] EWHC 1311 (Comm), the court made it clear that illustrations and examples included in a contract are not peripheral, they are binding terms. The judge went further, noting that in long, boilerplate-heavy contracts, visuals and examples may actually deserve greater attention, precisely because they reflect what the parties deliberately focused on when negotiating. In other words, rather than being treated as secondary, visuals can highlight the very issues that mattered most to the parties. 

In [2020] EWHC 1891 (Comm), the judge placed even stronger emphasis on the role of visuals. The case involved complex formulas in a financial contract, where the narrative explanations were abstract and difficult to follow. The attached “Worked Examples”, essentially visual demonstrations of how the formulas applied in practice, were recognized as the clearest evidence of what the parties actually intended. The court reasoned that examples showing the real-world consequences of the formulas were more reliable than text alone, because their purpose was to make the contract’s meaning explicit.

Taken together, these decisions show that courts do not dismiss visuals. On the contrary, when visuals clarify or illustrate contractual obligations, judges are willing, sometimes even eager, to rely on them as the most faithful representation of the parties’ true agreement. The takeaway for practitioners is powerful: including well-prepared visuals doesn’t weaken a contract’s enforceability, it can strengthen it by making the parties’ intent clearer and harder to dispute.

USA: A Broader Visual Culture in Courts

The U.K. cases show that courts are willing to give visuals contractual weight. The U.S. experience, while often arising in different contexts, reinforces the same point: courts are already comfortable interpreting images, diagrams, and other visual materials when resolving legal disputes.

In American courtrooms, visuals are a standard part of litigation practice. Attorneys use timelines, diagrams, charts, and even animations to help juries and judges understand complex facts. Courts regularly admit these exhibits and assess their meaning in the same way they do with written evidence. The purpose is not only to inform but often to persuade. This routine use shows that judges and juries alike are familiar with evaluating visuals as part of legal reasoning.

Courts have even gone further by interpreting visuals that were never designed as legal tools. For example, in defamation cases, judges have had to assess the meaning of political cartoons to determine whether they conveyed defamatory implications. Similarly, in election law disputes, courts have interpreted the meaning of visual symbols or campaign imagery to decide whether they crossed legal boundaries. These cases show that courts are capable of ascribing meaning to visuals that lack the precision of legal drafting, and yet they still manage to interpret and apply them effectively.

When compared to visuals deliberately crafted as part of a contract, the contrast is striking. A courtroom cartoon or campaign poster is open-ended and sometimes deliberately ambiguous, but courts still find ways to pin down meaning. A contract diagram, by contrast, is developed jointly by parties who must reach agreement on its accuracy. This makes contractual visuals not only interpretable but also more reliable as indicators of intent.

The message here is clear: visuals are already part of the legal ecosystem. Courts interpret them in trials, in disputes, and even in contexts where the visuals were never intended to be legal evidence. Against this backdrop, well-structured visuals in contracts should be seen as low-risk and high-value, they clarify obligations, reduce ambiguity, and align with interpretive practices courts already use.

As Willey, Tran, Hinkle & Matthews (2024) argue, visuals are not inherently risky. On the contrary, a well-prepared diagram, timeline, or chart can be more concrete and reliable than dense legal text.

📈 Why Visuals Strengthen Enforceability

When designed properly, visuals don’t weaken enforceability, they strengthen it:

1. Improved Comprehension: Visuals help parties actually understand what they’re signing. For instance, a delivery timeline chart in a supply contract makes deadlines obvious at a glance, no flipping between cross-referenced clauses.

2. Reduced Misunderstanding: Visuals bridge language barriers and minimize ambiguity. Fewer misunderstandings = fewer disputes.

3. Enhanced Accessibility: For business users, employees, or consumers with no legal background, visuals make contracts usable. Think of an employment agreement where a simple infographic explains leave entitlements, clearer for HR, managers, and employees alike.

4. Stronger Evidence: Courts construe contracts against the drafter, especially in B2C contexts. Visuals highlight and emphasize important terms, making it harder for counterparties to argue “I didn’t see that.”

🏢 Stories from Practice

One of the most frequently asked questions we hear is whether visuals in contracts really work in practice. The answer is a resounding yes, and not just in theory. Over the past decade, some of the world’s most forward-thinking organizations have tested and proven the value of visual contracts, both in building trust and in driving measurable business results.

Shell was one of the earliest pioneers. Working with Rob Waller and WorldCC, they piloted what became the very first “visual contract”, a groundbreaking document that didn’t just rely on walls of legal text, but instead presented information with a clear structure, visual markers, and plain language text. The project demonstrated that contracts could be both enforceable and user-friendly, setting the stage for an entire movement in contract design.

In the employment law space, Australian engineering firm Aurecon took this idea even further. Aurecon discovered that their traditional employment contract, dense, text-heavy, and uninviting, wasn’t reflecting their innovative culture. Partnering with the Comic Book Contracts team, they reimagined it into an interactive, visual-first contract that was professional yet approachable, serious yet engaging. Delivered online and personalized to each employee by name, the new contract became more than a legal formality, it turned into a one-stop resource. With embedded links, employees could instantly access key policies like leave, flexible working, remuneration, shared care, and the National Employment Standards. The result was a contract that embodied Aurecon’s values while making complex terms simple, usable, and even enjoyable.

More recently, EcoVadis, a global leader in sustainability ratings, undertook one of the most ambitious visual contract projects to date. Led by Stefania Passera in collaboration with WorldCC, they completely redesigned their business terms. The outcome, according to the company’s CEO, delivered the biggest return on investment they had ever seen in contracting. Negotiations became faster, onboarding smoother, and customer relationships stronger because the terms were not only transparent but also easy to work with. In other words: clarity didn’t just save time, it directly created business value.

And these aren’t isolated stories. Inside our own Contract and Legal Design Certification Course, we’ve seen graduates replicate this success first-hand. After learning our methodology, in-house lawyers, private practitioners, and consultants have gone on to redesign their own vendor agreements, procurement processes, and business terms. The impact has been tangible: deals closed faster, stakeholder alignment improved, and relationships with counterparties strengthened. Perhaps most importantly, participants report feeling confident that they can combine legal precision with user-focused visuals, something they never thought possible before.

The lesson is simple: when contracts are clear, visual, and accessible, everyone wins. Businesses save time and money, legal teams reduce risk, and users, whether employees, customers, or vendors, gain confidence in the agreements they sign. 

📌 Considerations for Enforceability

To ensure enforceability, visuals must:

• Be integral: Conveying substantive terms (ie., not mere decoration).

• Be interpretable: Clear enough for a judge to apply (ie., not confusing)

• Contain essential elements: Just as text contracts must. (ie, visuals must be complete)

Done right, visuals reinforce rather than replace traditional drafting. Courts have long been comfortable interpreting visuals. Businesses and consumers crave clarity. And research suggests visual contracts may even increase enforceability, because they make terms transparent and obvious.  

The skepticism around visuals is less about legal adequacy and more about lawyers’ unfamiliarity. Case law shows courts are comfortable interpreting them. Businesses and consumers increasingly expect them. And as research suggests, visual contracts can even increase enforceability, because they clarify terms instead of hiding them.

As more courts and companies embrace them, the lawyers who can confidently design and defend visual contracts will lead the next wave of practice. Our Contract and Legal Design Certification is packed with research insights, real-world case studies, and practical tools to help you incorporate visuals ins contracts and other legal documents, in a way that is both legally sound and user-friendly, using the tools you already use (ie Microsoft Word, PowerPoint etc.).

Because enforceability isn’t about resisting change. It’s about making contracts clearer, fairer, and better for everyone.