I think there is a great deal of utility in contract theory, law and practice, but it is imperfect. It can be said that a contract, explicit or implied, is associated with every inter-agency transaction. Ideally, the parties to a contract must be PEERS in a number of respects. Information asymmetry between parties, often due to deliberate obfuscation, is the most prevalent flaw in contracts. Despite a great deal of corruption and power bias in the legal system, there is also a long history in the common law and in consumer protection law respecting “full disclosure” and “informed consent”. “Fine print” and other forms of obfuscation are antithetical to the theory and application of fair contracts. As I think you suggest in your post by referencing “legal services”, social and economic justice would argue for some system of leveling the playing field for the parties. This might mean some form of “handicapping” (i.e. regulations that mitigate unfair advantage) or a system for impartial third-party cost-benefit analysis of all contracts in order to permit a fully informed consent of the parties. Contract theory, doctrine, and law can get very complex, especially if we try to minimize “externalities” and asymmetries, but I think it is a potentially a good foundation for social organization, especially if we pay close attention to the vast history of common law. In my opinion, common law is the DNA of civilization.