I dont do the @forexposure_txt thing a lot because like, everyone makes bad decisions when they're new in an industry because they're scared to get scammed, I like to give folks the chance to grow, but I have a client story that's both very funny and kind of a teachable moment:

Fella that needs some comic covers, right? Apparently his last artist ghosted him, he wants to get new covers to get the work out there, it's a red flag but no redder than I can handle. I offer him a discount for a bulk order because nurturing new writers can cement a client

He gets excited and starts talking about comic covers and promo materials and extras, I ask if he knows why his last artist ghosted him and he says he sincerely doesn't know; they'd been friends and he thought he'd been pretty good to her.
Nothing a contract cant square, right?

I got a standard contract I use detailing cancellation fees, revision limits and surcharges, and where it gets litigated if there's a breach of contract. Guy gets cold feet immediately, says he "doesn't trust long complex legalese" and "Doesnt agree with this country's laws"

He wants a further discount just for signing a contract. He wants to keep the bulk discount on TOP of that while reducing it to just one image to see how we do.
I decline these generous offers. So he says he'll revise the contract and get back to me.
Aight

He texts me the next day. The one page document he wanted to "simplify" is now one and a half pages and includes the following gems:

Typically I give one round of revisions at every phase of the art to refine your needs, and changes outside that scope carry an hourly surcharge. Gives you the chance to tweak without potentially requiring infinite labor from me.
He seems to consider this unacceptable.

Next is the payment clauses; pretty standard stuff, if I finish the piece you can no longer cancel it without paying full price. This is basically just to filter out jerks that think they can cancel when they have a version they like instead of paying the rest.
Put a pin in that

All art commissions inherently have a bit of a mystery box element to em, you're paying for the artists particular skillset. This lets him declare the skillset insufficient AFTER hiring me to practice it

To map it onto another product think of someone ordering food at a spicy restaurant, finishing their meal, and then declaring they're not paying because they dont like spicy food.

Typically I have this clause say I aint liable for damages that arise from my completion of the project: Doesn't really come up, it's just to keep me off the hook if some disaster impedes my ability to work or the client's request violates copyright.
Check out his edit tho

He's rephrased it in such a manner that he can declare the entire contract void at any time for any issue, without specifics of what constitutes negligence. On a legal document, those specifics matter a LOT. Also contradicts an earlier bit about deadlines being immaterial to this

This is the real Silliness though

A contract generally has to specify where it'll be enforced because laws for enforcement will vary from place to place or state to state? He strips out any type of enforcement, declaring any disputes get handled between us or void the contract

I respectfully decline, he wishes me well, and about 2-3 hours later I get the following texts

Now, I'm not here to dunk on this guy, but I do think that the struggle he's having isn't an uncommon problem with folks new to working with freelancers. Clear limits on the scope and revisions of the project are meant to protect both you AND the freelancer

They make sure I can't just scribble whatever and you're stuck with it if it doesnt meet your design brief, and they make sure you can't send the project into infinite changes, revisions and growth to get functionally unlimited work out of the single flat rate.

I understand that the instinct, when you see a limit on the scope of the work or when you can cancel, is to assume the other person is going to angle for that to scam you, but contracts are a little like coding; exact, specific language effects its function and may not be obvious

It can be intimidating, but remember that if there's any clause that's confusing you can discuss what it does with the other party or get a second opinion; writing in what You Reckon the agreement SHOULD be fails to account for the specifics of language on legal documents