Comments on: “Certify” http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/03/certify/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/03/certify/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Ken Adams Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:30:21 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/03/certify/#comment-97 Mary: That we're having this exchange suggests to me that "certify" is vague in terms of the level of formality required. I suggest that the clearest option would be to reserve "certify" for when a measure of formality is required and to use a simpler word in other contexts. Mary: That we’re having this exchange suggests to me that “certify” is vague in terms of the level of formality required. I suggest that the clearest option would be to reserve “certify” for when a measure of formality is required and to use a simpler word in other contexts.

]]> By: Mary http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/03/certify/comment-page-1/#comment-95 Mary Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:25:26 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/03/certify/#comment-95 In my many years as an engineer in pharmaceutical, chemical, and other industries, I have often "certified" that a procedure was followed, a device was successfully tested, a production process was acceptable for use, etc. The specific word "certify" was commonly used in the protocol, standard operating procedures, or qualification documents. In almost all cases the certification was simply a matter of signing a one sentence statement, or signing and dating a statement on the SOP or protocol form. On some software checkouts I would make over a dozen "certifications", many simply initials in blanks and an a signature on a form. In no case was any special document cluttered with legaldegook (or engineeringdegook) required. I think that if the work "certify" can be used in routine SOPs, protocols, and other engineering procedures, it certainly can be used in contracts. It does not, at least to me and others in my field, imply any special formality. Mary In my many years as an engineer in pharmaceutical, chemical, and other industries, I have often “certified” that a procedure was followed, a device was successfully tested, a production process was acceptable for use, etc. The specific word “certify” was commonly used in the protocol, standard operating procedures, or qualification documents.

In almost all cases the certification was simply a matter of signing a one sentence statement, or signing and dating a statement on the SOP or protocol form. On some software checkouts I would make over a dozen “certifications”, many simply initials in blanks and an a signature on a form.

In no case was any special document cluttered with legaldegook (or engineeringdegook) required. I think that if the work “certify” can be used in routine SOPs, protocols, and other engineering procedures, it certainly can be used in contracts. It does not, at least to me and others in my field, imply any special formality.

Mary

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/03/certify/comment-page-1/#comment-93 Ken Adams Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:10:44 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/03/certify/#comment-93 Eric's useful comment shows that when you're redrafting a contract, it's best to have available industry-specific expertise in addition to serious drafting chops. Eric’s useful comment shows that when you’re redrafting a contract, it’s best to have available industry-specific expertise in addition to serious drafting chops.

]]> By: Eric Goldman http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/03/certify/comment-page-1/#comment-92 Eric Goldman Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:04:36 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/08/03/certify/#comment-92 I've seen these type of post-agreement certification requirements in dozens (hundreds?) of contracts. In my 12 years of practice, I've never actually had anyone request one. So in most/all cases, I think the entire clause should be omitted. Eric. I’ve seen these type of post-agreement certification requirements in dozens (hundreds?) of contracts. In my 12 years of practice, I’ve never actually had anyone request one. So in most/all cases, I think the entire clause should be omitted. Eric.

]]>